Do you believe the universe is granular?

Do you believe the universe is granular?

Created by humble brother on Aug 5, 2011

35 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#1 Aug 5, 2011
Meaning that when you look close enough you will find the smallest particles that make up the whole universe.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2 Aug 5, 2011
Spatially granular? Temporally granular? Granular matter? It's a very vague question, at best.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#3 Aug 5, 2011
polymath257 wrote:
Spatially granular? Temporally granular? Granular matter? It's a very vague question, at best.
Let's make this about the granularity about physical matter. I can see people having problems with the concept of time being granular.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#4 Aug 5, 2011
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's make this about the granularity about physical matter. I can see people having problems with the concept of time being granular.
Then there is the question of how you deal with quantum effects in this definition. Quantum particles are NOT little balls of stuff that bounce off each other. So if you have a classical physics notion of granularity, the answer is clearly no.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#5 Aug 5, 2011
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's make this about the granularity about physical matter. I can see people having problems with the concept of time being granular.
Time is granular. There is no question about that.

http://api.ning.com/files/yesER6QmymDkMh9yNC1...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#6 Aug 5, 2011
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Time is granular. There is no question about that.
http://api.ning.com/files/yesER6QmymDkMh9yNC1...
Why do I get the phrase going through my mind: "these are the days of our lives"?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#7 Aug 5, 2011
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do I get the phrase going through my mind: "these are the days of our lives"?
Because 'Days of our Lives' seems to have been running since the dawn of time?

Anyway, as long as you're here, how come we only see one side of the moon?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#8 Aug 5, 2011
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Because 'Days of our Lives' seems to have been running since the dawn of time?
Anyway, as long as you're here, how come we only see one side of the moon?
It's called tidal locking. The moon rotates at about the same rate that it orbits the earth. This is due to friction caused by the tides acting on an uneven distribution of mass. But the moon doesn't orbit at a constant speed, so we are actually able to see more than 50% of the surface over time. IIRC, the actual percentage is 59%.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#9 Aug 5, 2011
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called tidal locking. The moon rotates at about the same rate that it orbits the earth. This is due to friction caused by the tides acting on an uneven distribution of mass. But the moon doesn't orbit at a constant speed, so we are actually able to see more than 50% of the surface over time. IIRC, the actual percentage is 59%.
Thank you.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#10 Aug 5, 2011
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
Time is granular. There is no question about that.
http://api.ning.com/files/yesER6QmymDkMh9yNC1...
Yes. This is my view as well. Although an hour glass is a bad example as you can always (in theory) cut the sand grains in smaller pieces. So the cutting never ends :)

If you believe physical matter is not granular, that will totally destroy the usefulness of the hour glass as an analogy for time being granular.

Also, if you believe time is granular and physical matter not, how about the movement of physical matter? Time then proceeds in steps. Do you think physical matter moves in jumps as time elapses in steps?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#11 Aug 5, 2011
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. This is my view as well. Although an hour glass is a bad example as you can always (in theory) cut the sand grains in smaller pieces. So the cutting never ends :)
If you believe physical matter is not granular, that will totally destroy the usefulness of the hour glass as an analogy for time being granular.
Also, if you believe time is granular and physical matter not, how about the movement of physical matter? Time then proceeds in steps. Do you think physical matter moves in jumps as time elapses in steps?
I made no claim with respect to time at the quantum level.

If you wish to present an argument that you can defend with evidence, do so.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#12 Aug 5, 2011
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
I made no claim with respect to time at the quantum level.
If you wish to present an argument that you can defend with evidence, do so.
Surely you cannot mean that quantized time is something vague? To me quatized time seems quite granular.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#13 Aug 5, 2011
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Surely you cannot mean that quantized time is something vague? To me quatized time seems quite granular.
'Seems to me' is not evidence.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#14 Aug 5, 2011
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
'Seems to me' is not evidence.
Aha, Gotcha! ;)

The whole definition of quantized time relies on the fact that time in essence is not smooth/analog but in fact granular.

So what do you now believe about the granularity of time, not granular at the quantum level?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#15 Aug 5, 2011
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Surely you cannot mean that quantized time is something vague? To me quatized time seems quite granular.
Actually, no it is not. At least, no more than energy is granular. Both are quantized, meaning that measurements only give certain values and not the a continuum, but that doesn't mean it is granular in the sense of having pieces.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#16 Aug 5, 2011
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Aha, Gotcha! ;)
The whole definition of quantized time relies on the fact that time in essence is not smooth/analog but in fact granular.
So what do you now believe about the granularity of time, not granular at the quantum level?
Gotcha ????

All you've got is stupid theories which you defend by ignoring the evidence against them.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#17 Aug 31, 2011
"Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion."
~Democritus of Abdera

The concept that matter is granular dates back to the fourth century BC. More recently, we've shown that time is granular, in the sense of the Planck time. Space, too, may be granular, with regard to the Planck length.

I still don't see what this has to do with evolution, though.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#18 Sep 1, 2011
Heidelberg Kid wrote:
"Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion."
~Democritus of Abdera
The concept that matter is granular dates back to the fourth century BC. More recently, we've shown that time is granular, in the sense of the Planck time. Space, too, may be granular, with regard to the Planck length.
I still don't see what this has to do with evolution, though.
Evolutionists have tried to argue that genetic drift somehow magically happens and there is no change that could be observed. Someone showed me an image which contained text and a color slide from one color to another across the whole picture. The argument was that one can not detect any individual changes in the picture. Well, one can when one zooms in.

Plainly put:
Two different instances of DNA from fossils of "different species" does not a transition make. No transition has been observed.

So the whole argument was just plain religious mumbo jumbo.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#19 Sep 1, 2011
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolutionists have tried to argue that genetic drift somehow magically happens and there is no change that could be observed. Someone showed me an image which contained text and a color slide from one color to another across the whole picture. The argument was that one can not detect any individual changes in the picture. Well, one can when one zooms in.
Plainly put:
Two different instances of DNA from fossils of "different species" does not a transition make. No transition has been observed.
So the whole argument was just plain religious mumbo jumbo.
What does that have to do with the universe being granular?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#20 Sep 1, 2011
Heidelberg Kid wrote:
What does that have to do with the universe being granular?
You really don't see it? DNA is a part of the universe. The claim was that DNA "evolving" into another DNA cannot be observed because of the genetic drift. There was an argument that the change can be seen but it cannot be truly observed. Why not, because it just can not!

The claim didn't actually make any sense to me, but alas, there it was, presented to me. And I had to counter it, twice.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 27 min hpcaban 11,650
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 58 min Chimney1 150,629
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr bohart 195,555
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Patrick 29,539
Humans Performing Dentistry 8000 Years Before F... 3 hr MIDutch 1
Science News (Sep '13) 19 hr scientia potentia... 3,621
News Exposing the impotence of the Neo-Darwinian theory (Jan '15) 23 hr asar 12
More from around the web