It is not inconceivable to me that what they are now calling “dark-matter/energy” or what I call “a relatively high affectance density region of space” or merely “thick space” can gradually become so dense as to begin spontaneously forming mass particles. Once that process begins, much larger mass objects would begin to grow and coalesce. Eventually that object could grow into a neutron star or burning star with planets, or perhaps a black hole - “coalescing from a cosmic cloud”.
But with black holes colliding, the universe would never be without mass objects anyway. The process of mass coalescing and then colliding into explosions would have to be occurring eternally regardless of anything else going on (even if there were no black holes).
“Infinite regression” refers to thinking about the cause to effect chain of stages of the universe and imagining that it traces back infinitely, without a beginning; “That arrow of time invariably soars forward, but not from bow…” It doesn’t refer to time going backwards, merely having come from and infinite past.
Maybe after a googol of years has passed black holes shall no longer exist
All there will be left will be massless particles like photons and gravitons
And so even the most powerful things in the universe shall eventually die
I discovered that mass particles form naturally from the chaos of random affectance. And that photons (the normal kind) are only formed by the motion of mass particles. Without mass particles, there is nothing to organized the random affectance into the required singularly directed puff of affectance that makes up a light photon. The popular theory is that the electron orbits around atoms collapse to initiate light photons. I haven’t discovered anything to refute that and have found no other means for photons to be produced.
If the universe had actually begun, it could not have begun with light, but rather with mass in the form of extremely randomized EMR, “Affectance” that makes up the mass, which expanded to become low density enough to allow subatomic particles to form which then naturally produced light photons. Photons could not have come before subatomic particles.
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.
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.
