If what is being timed is the falling of the dominoes from start to stop then what happened before the dominoes started to fall is totally irrelevant.
Do you time a runner in the 100 meter dash at say 10 seconds, and then claim it took 60 years because you were born 60 years ago?
youtu.be/Rh0pYtQG5wI?feature=shared
^I need one of these in 3D, please and thank you. [I already tried that^ route for 2D & got no response. Willing to pay!]
Assuming you really meant for me to give this serious thought without throwing upâŚ.
âŚ.rather than just trying to make me throw up.
Who are you talking to Ichy?
Motor Daddy about throwing up.
Anyone about transformation doohickey.
I werenât making any case, either for or against your statement, I was simply asking whether your reply was leaning towards a creationist bent⌠whether, knowingly, jokingly, or not.
This conversation got bent all out of shape⌠like what a super-massive gravitational force does, to a passing object. 
Well that was me Friday night, then!
Photons were at the Big Bang, but it wasnât light that we can now observe until the era known as recombination, about 378,000 years after the Big Bang, that photons had a practically infinite mean free path due to the majority of protons in the universe being bound up in neutral atoms, and the universe became transparent - before then, the universe did have photons, but you can think of it as the mean free path for the photons not being long enough for there to be any light. The universe was kind of âfoggyâ.
__
Everything we observe today, which had been packed tightly together, expanded in a roiling mass of light and particles. It took 380,000 years for this hot, dense soup to thin and cool enough to allow light to travel through it.
__
Within the first second after the Big Bang, the temperature had fallen considerably, but was still very hot - about 100 billion Kelvin (1011 K). At this temperature, protons, electrons and neutrons had formed, but they moved with too much energy to form atoms.
__
A new study by scientists at the University of Ottawa suggests that the universe is actually twice as old as we previously thought, at around 26.7 billion years old. 14 Jul 2023
__
In the beginning, or at least following the Big Bang more than 14 billion years ago, there was hydrogen, some helium and a little bit of lithium. A grand total of three elements. Today, there are nearly 100 known naturally occurring elements, with hundreds of variants.
vacuum in the OP title is not negative pressure
negative pressure is cyclical (better: circuitous) and is not nothing ⌠it behaves like a negative feedback loop to restore/maintain equilibrium (canât be done indefinitely, hence physiological death, and heat death⌠Borde, Guth, Vilenkin)
Correct me if Iâm wrong:
light is unwound matter and matter is wound up light
example:
chromosomes wrap up chromatin wrap up nucleosomes wrap up DNA (modulated/configured/informedâwith directions/information & error/code-correcting equipment to synthesize other modulations/configurations like proteins) & on & on â- all wrapped up by ecosystem, solar system, galaxy, so forth⌠INFORMATION which builds homeostatic life â in a homeostatic universe (at basic)
more specific example:
we act like histones when we (or the tools we use) release/unlock/unwind energy in a bomb
a bond is a double helical winding for however long, given the circumstances - example - tornado
getyarn.io/yarn-clip/040565b1-3 ⌠8d96c37ab0
the fractalicious nesting dolls ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ⌠2#p2921572
Follow up question:
Descartes corpuscle
Liebniz monad
Newton ⌠??? fractal?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_fractal
dkwise.wordpress.com/2019/01/18 ⌠nd-monads/
Think with:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon
To all. Here is a little taste of my frustration.
See if you can spot the incoherencies.
Lightâs Dual Nature
Electromagnetic Waves in a Vacuum
A photon particle oscillates like a wave
It feels like the seasons are wrong, because Spring/Fall should be one sphere, balanced against the winter sphere & the summer sphere.
That feels right.
Noon the summer sphere, midnight the winter sphere, sunrise/sunset the spring/fall sphere.
So. Adjust whatever, I guess.
The Virtuoso is fulfilled potential attentional without spending energy.
Light is not just what we see visibly. So if white is a thing for the rainbow, what is the thing for all the other spectrums/levels of light? Is it all just white and we can only see some of the whiteness? So why is there darkness? Because we canât see the whiteness? What would it be like if we could?
Why the concept of negentropy feels like sandpaper on skin to meâŚ
Itâs not because negative means below zero. Supposedly the universe started out in a state of low entropy. Supposedly the expansion created a situation of (increased) higher entropy. Who knows what the highest entropy could be. This is not about that, either. Itâs not about the edge limits.
What really rubs me the wrong way or grates against my nerves is that life is organized (ordered) in a way that the universe did not begin at. Supposedly.
It makes the âorderedâ beginning of the universe feel no different than the rest of the disorder.
I posted this here because negative entropy reminds me of a false vacuum.
There are two threads going on that converge here:
the complexity of life is middle-entropy, not high or low entropy.
So tell me. What is the complexity of the beginning? How do we account for it if we do not have ⌠how you say⌠selection pressure?
I donât understand, again, why youâre mixing these things. What does the complexity of the beginning have to do with selection pressure? Is there some reason why youâre asking this question like selection pressure is an important concept to understand the complexity of the beginning?
No, youâre right. Selection pressure doesnât even account for the beginning of sexual reproduction. Erm. Not yet? And what of the beginning of life itself? Are we talking about two different things/singularities when we talk about the beginning of the universe/physical existence, and the beginning of life? Are singularities not subject to âŚ. yada yada yada ⌠Iâm sure Iâve said enough that you can either finish my sentence, or depart in bad faith.
