And you do not think that the discovery itself could be the problem, the mistake? You need light in order to discover mass particles. So for observers their result can only be and is always that “mass was before light”, but that does not need to be true.
No, but you are welcome to examine the evidence.
All that I need is logic. The logic dictates that mass is formed without photons. And it is well accepted that photons form from the action of atoms. Logic also dictates that there can be nothing to form photons if there is no mass. But perhaps I made a mistake in my logic. Verify it for me.
I was referring to the the discoverer, the observer, the empiricism when I wrote that “you need light in order to discover mass particles”, although it is also right that you need light, at least “a bit”, for the use of your brain for logic. 
INterestingly it was found that life forms release small amounts of photons internally, less healthy organisms, fewer. There is some speculation that this is communicative. IOW it helps the organism work as a unit . given that photons are moving faster than, for example, nerve transmissions. Instead of domino type in relation to light rather slow cascading effects, you get almost instantious communication directly through the whole organism. Of course brains would be included.
My theory is that photons are analogous to sound waves. Sound waves are merely the product of movement on the atoms, altering our conscious perception. Photons are merely movment of the inverted space, aether, and they become slowed down, tangible to our realm. Sounds waves are to normal space, what photons are to inverted space, non space.
My brain is in max overdrive.
A little. But sound waves quickly disperse whereas light photons very, very slowly disperse, depending on what they are traveling through. Through extremely vacuous space (between the galaxies) photons do not disperse much at all. They are tiny puffs of the medium (the affectance field) that hold together as long as there isn’t much interference. Sound waves require a medium and very quickly disperse regardless of the medium. Photons travel best without any medium.
Sound waves don’t seem to exist. They seem to be an inversion of what they are not, an invisible cause causing atoms to move to where they are not.
Photons seem to exist, and atoms force photons to obey them, rather than causing atoms to move to where they are not. Since they are the inverse of sound waves, I would posit that photons that actually heat atoms, cause atoms to move towards them, becoming like photons (since heat is a chaotic sine wave function.)
Music to go with this: youtube.com/watch?v=yIYuVT6R3ec
You under estimate the power of schizophrenia. When there is no consciousness, time will travel infinitely, consciousness may be a pesky problem.
They aren’t really in the form of a “sine function”. Sine functions/waves are used as an approximation to simplify the math. There are no natural sine waves in nature, but sine functions can be used to make approximations for a variety of things.
There must be some kind of mass before the light. This is a misperception that photons/light is needed in the first place toform or discover mass, thus photons must be formed before anything else.
Some people may find it extremely naive but the fact of the matter is that one needs a mind to observe mass, not photons.
Now, one may ask again how can even a mind can see/observe mass without photons?
The answer is simple. It is not mind but seeing organs (eyes) that requires photons to obseve mass or existence. Mind can observe the mass without the help the eyes/photons.
I am not sure but it looks to me that some science theorists tend to take the clue from the Bible (let there be light).
With love,
Sanjay
No. It was just a thought - not more. And it is true: a discoverer, an observer, an empiricist needs light in order to be capable of discovering, observing, being an empiricist. The idea that the light was before the mass is interesting but not necessarily true. I have learned that the reverse is true. But nevertheless: I am always skeptic. 
I think that the theologians merely injected the BB into science for their own agenda, whether good or bad. From my perspective, people need to go through and beyond the truth in order to restore the light.
And I have been speaking strictly about the formation of mass, not the observation or discovering of mass (with the assumption that there was a BB, despite being certain that there never was).
That’s why i called it a chaotic sine function.
According to RM:AO „existence is that which has affect“. If we want to know what came first and look at the natural forces for a while (only for a while!), then we have to say that the main force affectance refers to is electromagnetism, thus not gravity.
There are no forces in RM:AO. But the most fundamental form of existence is the electric potential (Potential-to-Affect, PtA), immediately followed by the propagation of electric potential (“propagation of affect”, dPtA/dt), then comes the electro-magnetic field due to the propagation being delayed and thus compressed (d²PtA/dt²). The gravity/mass field later forms from the infinite degree of chaos formed from the ultra minuscule electromagnetic pulses randomly impeding each other such as to form the increasing more dense gravity field until it forms mass (d³PtA/dt³). After that, the constructs are in the form of molecules (just as with society).
And of course, none of these came before the others in time. They have all always existed.
If I read correctly, you say they always existed, and I imply this is because they are randomly moving around in different configurations, and eventually conciousness pops up during one of these configurations. My question to you is, when consciousness ceases, will the universe continue to expand, what will happen exactly when there is no more consciousness? Is there a way that the parameters of life will never become within its random potential access range, or is the access range of potential infinite, and it has no bounds? (Ie. the universe is only expanding because we are conscious, but as soon as all planets and spaceships are destroyed and the possibility of life seems to be impossible because the universe has expanded so much and atoms cant form structures anymore, all of a sudden physics are disobeyed and new planets/structures form?
Consciousness has always existed, merely in differing places. And the universe is not expanding. From time to time, black-holes collide into each other and create new galaxies. New life forms. The universe goes on … infinitely. It is mathematically impossible for the universe to not exist … and life within it.
And RM:AO is never “disobeyed”.
Do you really mean “mathematically impossible” (and why?) or “logically impossible” or both?
The Universe as it regards the principles of Time works precisely as I say it does.
12 = Beginning Of Time
(+16 Seconds)
28 = Inner Circle Of Time
(+16 Seconds)
44 = Outer Circle Of Time
(+16 Seconds)
60 = End Of Time
Essentially, the Universe cycles every 60 hence why we have 60 Minutes and 60 Seconds.
Now, 60 is easy. The mysterious number of this Time system is “24” which is why we live each day in a 24 Hour algorithm.
I know the formula to Time, so I’ll show you the inner digital programming of “24” and how it expands into “474” and “3174”, which are the same numbers by the way.
The Formula Of Time: 24 x 54 x 84 x 18 x 18 x 18 = 634894848 (See all those 48’s? It just shows you I know what I am doing precisely).
634894848 / 2 = [3174]474[24]
3174 = 24
474 = 24
24 = 24
8 + 8 + 8 = 24
8 x 8 x 8 = 512 Bytes
Computer language, learn it, speak it, live it.
For more information on my immortal movement that will prove once and for all that we are not alone and I am in touch with a higher power: youtube.com/watch?v=78uNnlvtieE
What if we don’t want to exist? Isn’t it unethical for the universe to not make us exist, without our consent?
I consider mathematics and logic to be the same in that math is merely a subset of logic - logic applied to quantities.
I think that I already went through this on this thread, but if you are interested in the math:
There are a few new concepts involved in that reasoning (for most people) so it might take a little time to digest, but the logic and math is simple enough and irrefutable.
The existence of life in the universe has a similar reasoning to it directly implying that life has to have always existed somewhere in the universe. In fact, at all times there are an infinite number of "you"s throughout the universe, due to similar math, and always has been. You are not new to the universe.
???
What if you don’t want a brick to be hard? Is it unethical that it is?