A few weeks ago I talked about some of the ways in which the fact that mainstream science has ignored the afterlife evidence has made scientists unable to understand some seemingly unrelated things. When you arbitrarily choose to ignore all evidence related to a major aspect of reality, then naturally your understanding of the rest of reality will be distorted! The levels of reality that we enter at death exist precisely where we are but at a higher vibratory rate, very much as different television channels exist in the same place but at different frequencies. Choosing to study only Channel Five, as mainstream science still does, is going to make you oblivious of the content and effects of all those other channels.
For scientists to flat ignore nearly two hundred years of abundant and consistent communications from the dead, and for them further to ignore all the related implications of quantum physics and consciousness research, is going to mean that their attempts to study their own “approved” aspects of reality will come up against repeated frustrations. I enjoy reading popular-science magazines, in part because so often when I discover some new scientific conundrum I can readily think of plausible explanations that are related to the greater reality of which this universe is an integral part (see Mainstream Science is off the Rails, June 28, 2014).
I hadn’t planned to be back on this topic so soon, but I have just learned something else that confounds me. Scientists have only now discovered that eighty percent – eighty percent – of the detectable light in the nearby universe seems to have no discernible source!
To quote the article linked above:
“It’s as if you’re in a big, brightly lit room, but you look around and see only a few 40-watt lightbulbs,” astronomer Juna Kollmeier — a Carnegie Institution for Science professor and the lead author of the new study on missing light said in a statement this week. “Where is all that light coming from?”
Good grief, how is this possible? How have they altogether ignored something so major for so long? This foolishness ranks right up there with the fact that mainstream physicists continue to study as if it were the whole enchilada what even they themselves admit is less than five percent of what exists. Nearly the entire universe is made up of dark matter and dark energy. Physicists call all this stuff “dark” because it doesn’t give off or reflect the photon-based light that exists in this material universe. When it comes to ninety-five percent of the universe, physicists admit to being clueless! And given that they have known for awhile that they were in this amazing pickle, they seem to be remarkably untroubled by it.
Dark matter makes up about 27% of the universe, which is more than five times the sum of all the material matter and energy in the universe put together. To their credit, physicists are having another go at trying to understand it. Their problem, though, is that they are looking for dark matter as if it were another set of subatomic particles – weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs), to be exact – when the very fact that dark matter won’t interact with the light on this material level of reality strongly suggests that it is not particle-based matter.
Please think about that for a moment. Physicists are trying to study dark matter as if it were just a more exotic sort of material stuff. But if something will not react with the photons of matter-based light, then it seems self-evident to you and me that probably it is not conventional matter.
Let’s offer these struggling physicists some help. Based on our study of the afterlife levels of reality, we know or strongly suspect that the following things are true:
How can these facts help us to help our floundering mainstream physicist friends? Let’s suggest to them what “dark matter” is likely to be, what the source of all that non-photon light likely is, and even – as a bonus – what is the probable name of the “dark energy” that makes up 68% of the universe. I am betting they will eventually discover that:
photo credit: <a href=”https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/898622334/”>jurvetson</a> via <a href=”http://photopin.com”>photopin</a> <a href=”http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/”>cc</a>