Light over time; a physics we cannot measure?

Chapter title: The effect of light over time; a mathematic we haven’t measured?

The science of light looks at properties we can measure. We know light (in all spectrums) is both wave and particle that travels at what’s considered a universal constant. We know light is bent by gravity, and when light strikes metal atoms it causes electron expulsion which results in electric current. We know when light strikes metal and other surfaces it transfers energy. These are known and measured properties of light.

However there are other observations which give window into a different physics for light:

Without light, there would be no life on Earth:
Light has played a role in the emergence and perpetuation of life on Earth. This is not a known mathematical model, it’s not discussed in textbooks, and probably considered aberrant in the sense that self-awareness lets people see themselves separate from the planet’s chemistry, yet without light there would be no life on this planet. So is life a property of light over time?

Light causes unusual things:
It’s been shown that some people become depressed, or deteriorate mentally without sustained exposure to sunlight. Is mental cognition a property of light over time?

And more:
Imagine for a moment if our atmosphere was opaque and obscured everything in space. We would experience day and night but everything outside the planet would be invisible: no distinguishable moon, sun, planets, stars, or galaxies.

Assuming the flat moon theory (which says man extrapolates reality from what he can see; and thus man believed the Earth was flat because his observations revealed a one-sided, flat moon, and subsequent flat sun), would man seek the stars and planets if their existence were unseen? How could man know to devise tools to explore and measure planets he can’t see? And if such tools were invented, how would anyone know where to point them since celestial objects pose such tiny moving targets?

But Earth’s atmosphere is clear. Celestial bodies are visible and man has taken actions to investigate the phenomenon of light arriving from space. And only because light arrives here have we taken specific action to explore what we see. This means that light arriving from space has caused an unusual response from our planet.

Light arriving from space has caused man to send radio waves and launch electrically charged probes into space. Additionally our industrial lives generate measurable electrical & atomic radiation that would be non-existent if light stopped sustaining our lives. This analysis leads to the proposal that exposure to light over time has caused ‘particle’ emissions from our planet.

Let’s look at it from afar: imagine if you were in space looking at our nickel-core planet, you would see odd and rare emissions of particles and radiation beyond reflected sunlight, yet be unaware the role light played in causing them because these events resulted from exposure to light over time.

Another proposal:
Look at the similarity of how our light-bathed nickel-core planet emits particles the same as metal atoms emit an electron when exposed to light. Is particle emission from our spinning mud and nickel ball coincidence or a probability of physics?

Last idea:
Is it a coincidence that electrically charged carbon base reactions happen on the surface of a spinning metal core planet that has been bathed by a stream of light for billions of years?

Is Earth a type of capacitor that re-emits light energy to make petroleum? Does Earth re-emit light energy in a way that causes the slow-burning electrical storm on the surface we see as life?

Summary:
If light powers life and causes emission of particles from a spinning nickel ball, why can’t we expect other unusual or similar properties associated with large scale radiation over time.

For instance should we be looking for life as it exists on Earth solely on planets with a metal core that have been exposed to similar light for an equal period of time?

Can we assume life will take form on every metal core planet and moon, but be proportional in intensity to the amount of light and the type and mass of its metal?

Conclusions:
Observations show that light is party to some unusual happenings, and reveals that light over time is a window into a different physics of the universe.

It also shows how mankind’s perspective is limited by the brief snapshot allowed by our short lifespan. How can man experiment on probabilities posed by physics that spans tens of thousands or millions of years when recorded history barely covers 6000 years?

Questions: 1. Is there concurrence that the above observations rise to the level of scientific consideration? 2. Is anybody working on these ideas? 3. Since light is a measure of time, yet has properties that make time a variable, how can experiments be structured to measure light over time? Or is variability of time the key for designing an experiment?


Gene Haynes