Extragalactic background light.

A second confirmation of the prophecies - Comment on 2012 November 2 (2)

Website: countdown4us.com
Home | Comments | Creation | Redemption Period | Miscellaneous
Home > Comments > 2012 > Comment on 2012 November 2 (2)

2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 |

2012 November 2 (2)

Go to the end of this webpage:

Stars may burn out and die, but their light goes on forever. Read more:

Just after I read about the support for Obama by politicians outside of his party, I read another report that confirmed prophecies coming to us via Bertha Dudde. And this applies to prophecies coming from Jakob Lorber as well.

The report says, "Stars may burn out and die, but their light goes on forever," and that is what the messages say. The spiritual writings tell us that stars are temporal and light is eternal. Stars are material things and therefore passing, and light also seems to be passing but it is actually everlasting, particularly that light that is pure spiritual light. And stars do not actually burn out but they die. Stars do not burn out because they do not burn in the first place. The production of light does not happen inside the star, but in the area of the corona. And science confirms this because the corona is very much hotter than the actual surface of the star. So the light of the star is not really the starís light and therefore can go on forever.

The report calls the phenomenon extragalactic background light or EBL

The article assumes that light is produced by stars; that is of course just an assumption, and as usually not identified as such. In reality it is the other way round, light is the original stuff and it also produces material things like suns, stars.

Here come excerpts from the article I read today:


Astronomers measure cosmic 'fog,' estimate space between stars

Stars may burn out and die, but their light goes on forever. All the light ever produced by stars is still circulating through the universe, a phenomenon known as extragalactic background light or EBL. This light is a kind of cosmic "fog" that dims light from distant stars passing through it, much like the beams from a lighthouse are dimmed by real fog. Now, for the first time, astronomers have been able to measure the sum total of EBL and to calculate the spacing of stars in the cosmos. They reported Thursday in the journal Science that the average density of stars in the universe is about 1.4 per 100 billion cubic light-years. That means that the average distance between stars is about 4,150 light-years.


I now want to add a comment I found directly after the above quoted report.

The comment goes like this:

To 'know', historically, means to have experienced. We don't 'know' how or if the Universe began. But we do have informed opinions called theories; Just like the Standard Model theory; Oh wait, that one didn't work out so well experimentally. Now we have a new addendum to the Standard Model Theory called 'Dark Matter' and 'Dark Energy'. Which is to say 'We don't have a clue and we'd better come up with something before the private/federal grants dry up' theory.

"We'd better come up with something before the private/federal grants dry up" also seems to apply to CERN. I read something that the scientists now want a much bigger accelerator than the one in Geneva. This seems to be an attack forward to camouflage all the missing results they so much hoped to find there. They want to divert the negative attention they get, because no real results are coming forward, by demanding a bigger machine. They practise the method of forward defence. The Higgs boson they allegedly found there, and for which no confirmations are coming forward, also seemed to have been such an attempt to stop the threatening dry up of the grants.

With this see also 2012 Mar 09 Ė People education stupefying campaign

In another article I read, "One of the important questions for cosmology is the level of extragalactic background light (EBL), thought to have been produced by the first stars to form in the Universe."

So it is, as usually, something scientists thought of, a theory.

But the vital point here is that scientists always want to reverse the sequence. They always want to have the stars, and only afterwards the light. If they would allow the light to be first, everything would make sense.

Here some of the previous webpages of this website dealing with the sun and where its light comes from:
2012 Apr 28 Ė Astrophysics: Where does the cosmic radiation come from?
2012 May 02 Ė Cosmic radiation
2012 May 27 Ė The Sunís energy-producing fusion reactions

Scientists often reverse the right sequence. The right sequence for instance is to have light first and then the stars. Scientist canít deny the existence of light, something spiritual. They would if they could, but light is also something material. So they canít deny its existence. Scientists often reverse the right sequence. The right sequence for instance is to have the spiritual first and then the material, but here they can deny the existence of the spiritual, because it is not something material. The same applies to the soul and the body. They deny the existence of the soul and therefore also the existence of its evolution and believe in the existence of the evolution of the body. So here we have two branches of science, astrophysics and biology, and both have fundamental problems, both got the very basics wrong and run in the wrong direction and that since ages.

So letís carry on observing the spiritual blind leading the spiritual blind.


Back to: 2012 November 2 (2)


Go to the top of this webpage:

2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 |

Home | Comments | Creation | Redemption Period | Miscellaneous

For an overview of this website and for access to the individual webpages go to:
Site Map

The web address of this webpage is: