Universe and Time

“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.

One orbit around the galactic center of our sun takes about 250 million years. This is called a “galactic year”.

So the following picture shows about 42 miilon years more than 2 galactic years (about 500 Million years):


Frequency distribution of extinction events on Earth in the last 542 million years (1 galactic year = ca. 250 Million years).

“Frequency distribution of extinctions”???

Oh, sorry, I meant “frequency distribution of extinction events”.

Time means change, yes, but times also means return of the same.

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

There is no such thing as a physical graviton. And without mass particles, there won’t be any photons either.

But I can’t see any time past or future where there wasn’t or won’t be black holes.

Perhaps mass particles need photons, but photons do not need mass. Whithout photons there won’t be any mass particles.

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.

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. :slight_smile:

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. :wink:

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).