SIDESTEPPING 'NOW'.

SIDESTEPPING ‘NOW’.

https://www.rudebaguette.com/en/2025/06/scientists-achieve-the-impossible-mind-blowing-breakthrough-as-experts-create-light-from-empty-space-by-manipulating-time-and-space/

“Scientists from the University of Rostock and the University of Birmingham have discovered a way to create light from empty space by manipulating time and space.”

“They have found a way to generate flashes of light seemingly from the void, fundamentally altering our understanding of how time and space can interact.”

“This discovery not only challenges our existing understanding but also paves the way for new explorations into the fundamental principles of the universe. The implications of these findings could be far-reaching, potentially leading to advancements in technology and a deeper comprehension of the cosmos.”

“By leveraging the unique properties of time-influenced light, scientists could unlock new capabilities and push the boundaries of what is currently achievable. As we stand on the brink of these exciting developments, one must wonder: how will this unprecedented control over time and space shape the technologies of tomorrow?”

“With these new discoveries, we find ourselves at the cusp of a new era in physics, where the manipulation of these fundamental dimensions could lead to revolutionary changes in our understanding and interaction with the universe. As we ponder the future, the question remains: what other mysteries will the study of time and space unravel, and how will they transform our world?”

*******

These researchers may have stumbled upon something far more important than they realise.

They could be playing with the key to worlds beyond the present understanding, and even beyond the imagination of OUR scientists 

Worlds ‘where’ our ALIENS and their amazing vehicles come from.

Physicists discuss various aspects of ‘time travel' and some wonder why we haven't already been visited from other times.

WE HAVE BEEN VISITED, probably continuously and for a very long time!

But this isn't ‘time travel' in the way it's normally considered. It's related to the origin of virtual particles, which are actually real particles, just not from quite NOW.

THE ALIENS (and the virtual particles) come from another ‘slice’ of time, a physical reality in which the matter is not quite synchronous in time with the matter of our physical reality.

This is a concept OUR physicists have no knowledge of and cannot understand without a full grasp of the Ignis theory of light AND it's corollaries.

Unfortunately (I suppose) our scientists are unlikely to even begin on the path to learning the fundamentals of the physical reality of the Universe, as they are convinced they already know how it works and lack an ability to think clearly beyond their beliefs.

Perhaps THE ALIENS will teach them?

Do we even need to know?

Probably it's best if we don't!

NOTE: This addresses another physical reality in which the matter is not quite synchronous in time with the matter of our physical reality, and the two present rare, minute and almost undetectable, extremely transient interface remnants to each other.

YOUR DECISION

YOUR DECISION

https://www.ecoportal.net/en/solid-light-created-brighter-than-white/8398/

“Solid light” created for the first time in history — It’s brighter than white.

by Marcelo C. May 29, 2025

The article, in general, reflects the muddied thinking of mainstream physics today but no source for the information is given. Who were the scientists involved in this claimed breakthrough? Why are they not attributed? Strangely, even the article’s author’s full name is not provided.

“Scientists from the Institute of Nanotechnology of Lecce, in Italy”?

“by Marcelo C.”?

“When an electron is CHARGED TO ITS FULL CAPACITY, it explodes, expelling photons, and the levels of energy in these atoms are translated into the colors we see.”

Agnosco: Physics has routinely ignored Einstein’s concept of an electron comprising many photons, a concept my theory expands upon, but the foregoing paragraph incorporates the concept of the Ignis electron almost as if my theory had been read by the researchers involved!

It is the energy level of the originating electron, incorporated in its constituent photons, not the “energy of the atom”, that gives rise to the colour emitted.

“In this state, photons behave like particles and can reflect and emit light with an intensity and order that it appears almost ‘brighter than white’—not only in brightness, but in how precisely the light is structured.”

Agnosco: This is certainly a misunderstanding of experimental outcomes. Photons, when materialised, may themselves be reflected by material things but do not themselves reflect light with the exception of extremely rare occasions of coincidence of location and materialisation. Neither do they emit light [photons], and if they did, that light would be at a lower energy level (lower ‘frequency’) than the parent photons, not at a higher energy as implied by the article.

So, is there precisely and imprecisely ‘structured’ light? What does that statement mean?

“What was ONCE CONSIDERED pure energy without mass can behave like matter. If photons had mass, the universe would be a very different place.”

Agnosco: Physicists are very slowly moving towards the Ignis concept to some extent but they continue to exclude the transience of photon mass from their thinking.

Is it no longer considered by physicists that photons are pure energy, massless entities?

If photons simply ‘had’ mass the universe would indeed be a very different place, but they do not have influential mass on a continuous basis, as my theory explains.

Physicists may be shifting their thinking toward alignment with my theory without acknowledging its existence.

Even if this shift in thinking is actually happening, physicists continue in their failure to grasp the fundamental nature and simplicity of what is described in my theory and persist in an attempt to retain a mysterious aura for the basic physics of the universe.

You, as a physicist or as an intelligent independent thinker, may of course dismiss the Ignis theory out of hand (once you have considered it).

Perhaps it will be shown eventually that you failed to exercise your mind with sufficient studious discipline to understand the concepts involved, unable to set aside what you have previously believed to be true.

Why not avoid such an unfortunate outcome by seeking out and fully taking in my material on X and my blogger posts at:

https://photon-interactions.blogspot.com/?m=1

You will then be equipped to logically demolish my argument (which nobody has attempted to do since its publication in 2016), or to realise its validity.

Some may close their ears against the ideas I present but that will not make them go away. The ideas themselves are ‘in the wild’ and will persist until they are properly addressed even if I'm no longer extant.

Become part of a revolutionary update to physics or stand aside into irrelevance.

SPEED LIMIT

SPEED

Light is a portion of the range of electromagnetic energy propagating in discrete packets known as photons.

The Ignis Theory of Light

In the absence of interaction, each photon propagates in a perpetually repeating cycle through low mass/high energy and high mass/low energy phases, with individual photon mass and energy being immeasurably small.

At the beginning of each propagation cycle the intrinsic lowest mass of a photon is accelerated by the force exerted by its intrinsic maximum energy.

The initial [intrinsic] mass of a photon accumulates inertial mass under acceleration.

Inertial mass accumulation ceases when all photon energy is consumed when it is completely expressed as mass by its acceleration.

On cessation of acceleration the mass of a photon reverts to its intrinsic level, once again under the accelerating force of its full energy content, at the beginning of it's next cycle.

The high rate of acceleration of high energy photons produces a shorter repetition period than exhibited by low energy photons.

The repetition period of a photon is directly proportional to its energy, 

Each photon possesses an immeasurably small electric charge proportional to its instantaneous mass.

High energy photons exhibit higher mass and charge than low energy photons.

MATTER

In an early universe consisting initially of energy alone, positively and negatively charged photons interacted to cause the complex captured photon relationships that exist as matter. [Discussed elsewhere].

All particles of matter [atoms] are an intrinsically stable mass/charge relationship between the particular photons they comprise.

Speed Limitation

As an atom of matter within a space-ship, for example, is accelerated, each constituent photon comprising that matter gains additional energy and mass derived from the accelerating energy [chemical engine for instance].

If available, continued acceleration progressively increases the energy of any given photon, consequently progressively reducing its repetition period toward zero.

This zero/minimum repletion period would theoretically be attained first by the highest energy photons comprising the atom in question and progressively by lower energy associated photons if some catastrophic breakdown or unknown transition had not already occurred.

Beyond Light Speed

A source of acceleration beyond what is known in the universe would be necessary to accelerate matter past Light Speed if indeed matter could be seen as even existing at that point.

The mass/charge relationship established  within and allowing the separate existence of the atom in question could be seen to be catastrophically disrupted by the process previously discussed.

This appears likely to result in the rapid and total release of all of the energy aggregated to form the atom initially.

RADIATION PRESSURE

RADIATION PRESSURE

How do Einstein's 'packets of energy' FORCE molecules of matter apart in the process of thermal expansion?

Quite simply, on a regular repetitive basis each photon acquires momentary mass and charge.

For each photon, the acquired mass and charge are proportionate to its energy, which also determines its materialising repetition rate.

Photons MUST engage with matter via some mechanism that imparts FORCE to its molecules.

Physics has not yet explained how this comes about.

“When the photons that make up light strike an object, they exert a tiny amount of force on it, known as radiation pressure.”

[Agnosco: They call it this but have no idea of how it works. The Ignis photon with mass and charge explains this interaction.]

AGNOSCO'S MUSINGS

 AGNOSCO'S MUSINGS

While the occasional 'qualified' person has said the ideas in Quantum Mechanics – A Classical Interpretation cannot be right because physics has believed something different for over 100 years, there has not been one analysis challenging the facts or the logic of the argument put forward.

“The most important ideas are likely to be the ideas that are most disruptive.” Eric Weinstein

“What if in fact we had all sorts of things exactly backwards and completely wrong?” Eric Weinstein

“We need to be able to reinsert dissidents.” Eric Weinstein

Are my words beyond a reasoned challenge? Surely not.

And yet, no person, physicist or otherwise, has provided a reasoned rebuttal of any nature despite my theory having been viewed by many, many people since the publication of my website in February 2016.

Not one opposing argument has been put forward by any of the many scientists and science writers/journalists asked directly for comment.

I'm beginning to take the lack of dispute arising from my description of the nature and behavior of light as an unspoken endorsement of my theory.

It would be reasonable, I think, for me to seriously call into question the personal integrity and commitment to science of each physicist asked for comment.

Setting aside any other aspect of the hypothesis, my description of the Double Slit Experiment interpretation is simplicity incarnate and should be subject to counter argument if such an argument exists.

History may yet reveal that a great deal of time has been wasted in the pursuit of phantoms while a simple but ego confronting answer to many unresolved questions in physics lay at our feet.

“THE QUESTION IS, OF COURSE, IS IT GOING TO BE POSSIBLE TO AMALGAMATE EVERYTHING, AND MERELY DISCOVER THAT THIS WORLD REPRESENTS DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF ONE THING?”

Richard P. Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vols 1-2 

At first I felt somewhat foolish in putting forward my unsophisticated ideas among the learned experts but being unable to fault my own logic, pressed ahead.

I wanted to know if the ideas were true.

Continuing thought in the interim has strengthened my confidence that a very simple adjustment to how we view the world at the micro level allows us to weave this universe of ours into an amazingly clear and elegant network of interconnected logic. This viewpoint provides tools permitting the visualization of every feature of reality that I have analyzed to this point in time.

A clear understanding of the simple mechanics of heat and expansion is only the beginning.

If I am able to do this, what could the truly great minds of this planet accomplish if they absorbed this very simple idea?

With a bit of a rethink, anyone smart enough to be a quantum physicist would be able to take the small conceptual change I suggest, and do far more with it than I would ever be able to do.

But unfortunately, we are creatures with firmly entrenched patterns of behavior in our lives.

Few are able to alter an established habit. Our subconscious mind fights relentlessly to prevent any revision of what we have previously decided is true.

Everything we have learned is part of our habit system, thus we adamantly refuse to engage with contrary ideas. Such things are a direct challenge to 'who we are', that is, to our ego. Our knowledge, to some degree, IS who we are.

My conscious self is not really in the driver's seat to the extent I prefer to think it is. Neither, I believe, is yours.

Few retain the neural plasticity enabling true learning or creative imagination beyond the formative years. Thus few truly new ideas arise from mature individuals in any field, specifically including the sciences. And we are far less adaptable to new ideas than we tend to believe ourselves to be.

As I wrote elsewhere some time ago, Ego > Sex > Food > Integrity. You may wish to alter the sequence of Sex and Food, but Ego always remains paramount.

Why should physicists risk investigating dangerous new ideas? The simple answer is 'because that is what thinkers do'. And in that direction lies the greatest chance of exciting discoveries.

With even small incremental gains in particle physics proving progressively more elusive and no clear path forward being apparent, why not have a quiet look at Ignis to see if there is really anything there? Do this as an interesting imaginative diversion at first, or even to ridicule what you find. Despite yourself you may discover an excitement you considered no longer possible for you.

Give it a try.

"A great nation is like a great man: When he makes a mistake, he realizes it. Having realized it, he admits it. Having admitted it, he corrects it. He considers those who point out his faults as his most benevolent teachers.”Lao Tzu - Source: Tao Te Ching,

NATURAL LANGUAGE EXPLANATIONS

NATURAL LANGUAGE EXPLANATIONS

Feynman’s insistence on ordinary language recalls the statement attributed to Einstein about not really understanding something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.

It is equally useful for testing the claims of others. If someone cannot explain something in plain natural language, then we should question whether they really do themselves understand what they profess…. 

In the words of Feynman, “It is possible to follow form and call it science, but that is pseudoscience.”

Choose any of the currently espoused

'theories' and:

a). Attempt to visualize what is claimed to be happening, and

b). Attempt to describe the ideas in natural language without the aid of mathematics.

 

THEORIES IN PHYSICS

THEORIES IN PHYSICS

Every stray thought is now considered a theory.

In my view, no idea can make a valid claim to being a theory unless an unbroken chain of causal events from established reality to the effects claimed by the theory can be explained in a logical, natural language progression of ideas.

Anything less is at best hypothetical and at worst mere speculation.

This does not discount the possibility of an inspiration giving a radical but correct answer without a conscious process of analysis supporting the conclusion provided.

In such rare instances, I suggest it likely that the truly amazing abilities of the subconscious mind have completed a detailed analysis without the process entering conscious awareness.

Having become aware of what appears to be a valid leap of understanding it then becomes obligatory to formulate and explain a process by which the known may be logically extended to align with the hypothesized conclusion reached.

Unless such a process can be successfully achieved, any claim to theoretical relevance must be set aside.