What does the Universe look like?

An Assessment of the Description in “Toward the Light!” – the Helix model vis-à-vis the Flat Model

By Sverre Avnskog



































































































































This model of the universe, based on the description in TtL, was made by a close friend of Johanne and Michael Agerskov, machine fitter A.Andèr. The model was constructed on the basis of drawings made by architect Knud Brønnum, and it has been referred to in several letters included in Johanne Agerskov’s copy books. I found the picture of the model with the family of Johanne Agerskov’s sister Emma, married Mathiesen. Emma Mathiesen was an ardent advocate for TtL and, among other things, wrote an open letter where she countered an attack from bishop Martensen-Larsen. Photo: Private.


















































According to TtL the Kingdom of God is a reality – it is a huge central sun of gigantic proportions surrounded by four mother suns, rotating in pairs around the central sun. Among the adherents of TtL there is a certain disagreement about how to understand the description of the movements of the mother suns around the central sun, and therefore I begin by quoting in extenso the description  in TtL.





























































"In order to somehow comprehend the movements of the mother planets, one must think about the universe as a picture transferred onto a piece of paper.

God’s Kingdom, being a mighty sun created by the rapid ethereal-material oscillations of the Light, carries and maintains, as a central sun, the four star systems.

On each side of the central sun the mother suns are placed in pairs opposite each other; when the central sun and the four mother suns are all in a position opposite each other, an imagined line will pass through the centers of the four suns and the central sun.

The mother suns are of exactly the same weight. Each sun has its own axis movement.

The distance between the paired mother suns, measured from the center of each sun is equal to the radius of the central sun (God’s Kingdom). The identical orbit of the pair describes a perfect circle, the radius of which is 7 times the radius of the central sun. The periphery of this great circle cuts through the center of the space between the paired mother suns; hence the specific movements of the mother suns will be fifty percent outside and fifty percent within the periphery of the great circle.

The mother suns balance each other, attracting and opposing equally. Therefore the distance, once established between them, will be maintained eternally.

The paired suns’ movement, following each other around the central sun, is in an open circular orbit (helical orbit), such that the center of the distance between the two suns will glide constantly along the periphery of the great circle or orbit.

The two pairs move towards each other.

Drawing on a piece of paper a picture with the mother pair a-b to the left of the central sun and the pair c-d to the right, having all five suns in opposition to each other and a position where a and c is closest to the central sun and b and d furthest away, then – imagining this position as the point of departure for the movement of the mother suns – the suns a and c are both moving away from the central sun, while b and d are moving towards the central sun. The helical orbit of a-b is hence moving from the left side of the central sun towards the right, while the pair designated c-d will move from the right hand side to the left. After approximately 3 million years the pair named as a-b will have entered the position of the c-d pair to the right of the central sun and the pair c-d will be vice versa. The entire orbit for both along the common orbit around the central sun will be equal to 2 eternities, corresponding to around 6 million years.

The originally given orbiting speed for both pairs will be maintained perpetually, since they, at any given time, will all be contributing to a mutual balance, such that the equilibrium position of the pairs, having God’s Kingdom as the central sun, will never be disturbed.

Around each of the mother suns a star system (“a Milky Way”), shaped as an elliptical ring, circles and participate in their movement; each mother sun has been directly or indirectly ejected, or ejected by eruption, by its mother sun. (The planets or stars created by the mother suns have, in their turn, by means of ejections or eruptions cleaved and formed smaller planets – and so forth). Because of the centrifugal force the planets of the star systems have distanced themselves from the circular movement to an elliptical movement around each one mother sun as one nucleus and an immaterial power center – invisible for human beings – as the other nucleus.

For a planet’s orbit around its sun to be perfectly circular, three factors are required to be of precisely balanced force and speed: the rotational speed of the sun’s axis + its speed through the universe and its centrifugal and centripetal force. If the formation of a new planet takes place by eruption, generated by inner eruptional explosions in the sun planet, the centrifugal power in most cases will more or less exceed the power, at which a normal process of centrifugal ejection (drop ejection) happens. Planets formed by eruptional ejections will therefore acquire a more or less elliptical trajectory. If the trajectory turns out to be elliptical, an immaterial power center will quite mechanically be generated opposite the material sun. Depending on the shape of the orbit, the immaterial power center will be closer to or further away from the material sun.

However, the irregular trajectory of a planet may also be caused by gravitational forces from other suns. –

Things are organized in similar fashion with the numerous solar systems within the four main systems. Because of the centrifugal force the star suns and the planets have also moved from the circular orbit to a more or less elliptical trajectory around their central sun as one center and a power center, invisible to human beings, as the other center.

If one pictures each of the four star systems as a body shaped as an ellipsoid, one axis will be  = 1/7 of the radius of the open circle (the helical circle), which the mother planets are following in their specific trajectory after each other; the other axis = 1/28 of the arc length of the same helical circle, and the third = 3/7 of the longest axis.

Since the size of the second axis (1/28 of the arc length of the helical circle) cannot become perfectly accurate by human calculation, therefore the third axis (3/7 of the other one, the longest axis) also cannot show completely perfectly the here indicated size of 3/7.

The four mother suns with adjacent volume of the star systems together represent 1/7000 of the central sun (God’s Kingdom).

The quantity of planets is at any given time limited – the opposite would go against the law of equilibrium – but as time goes by the number becomes unlimited; new planets will be continuously created, while older planets disappear and disintegrate; but the total weight will – as long as the four mother sun systems, by the power of God’s will, are rotating in the universe – continuously balance and equal zero. Hence the number of planets is finite within the concept of ‘being’, but infinite within the concept of ‘becoming’.

Everything that can be observed from the earth in terms of suns – even the nebulas furthest away – belong to the same system, whose mother sun – one of the four – will one day be able to be seen from the earth; presumably this will only happen when the appropriate observation instruments have been changed and perfected. When the time comes it will be found at a low position in the southwestern part of the sky.

The solar and planet system to which the earth belongs is positioned in the inner part of the elliptically shaped ring of the “Milky Way” and is moving towards the immaterial power center."

As already made public in an article on my Norwegian website, unfortunately a very important sentence in the explanation has been erroneously translated into English. It is the sentence that in the Danish version goes as follows: “Parrene har en hinanden modgaaende Bevægelse.” A direct translation into English would be: “The pairs have a movement going towards each other”. However, there is much to indicate that the translator has had Knud Brønnum’s drawings in his mind when translating this sentence, for he or she has not been entirely faithful to the wording of the sentence, rather he/she has interpreted the content of the sentence, and this is how it sounds in the official translation: “The pairs turn in opposite directions”. Even if this is an interpretation and not a direct translation, it could in its essence have been correct if the flat model was the correct one. Because here the two mother sun pairs are indeed turning in opposite directions. But this is not the case in the helix model. They are only apparently rotating in opposite directions. If you follow the movements of one pair half an orbit around the central sun such that they eventually end up in the starting position of the other pair, you will discover that this pair is now rotating in exactly the same manner as the other one. The reason why they still have an opposite movement is that they are rotating in a circle and hence will be opposite to each other during the entire rotation!

Two still pictures from my animation of the movements of the mother suns around the central sun. This model is often called the helix model, since the movement of the mother sun pairs will form a helical trajectory. The picture above shows the initial position of the mothersuns, as described in TtL, and the picture below shows the position after a while of rotation. The difference between this model and the one developed by Knud Brønnum in the 1920s is that in the helix model the plane of rotation of the mother suns is positioned perpendicularly to the great circle – the imaginary circle described by the joint movement of the pairs around the central sun –, whereas in the case of the flat model the mother suns rotate in the same plane as the great circle. Illustration: Sverre Avnskog.

This illustration was made by a member of the board of the TtL Fund and Publishing Company, Jørgen Degn. As you can see from the illustration, he is an advocate of the flat model, where the mother suns rotate in the same plane as the great circle. I have taken the liberty of calling this model the flat model. Illustration: Jørgen Degn.

In my view only the helix model satisfies the TtL explanation. From previous discussions in the TtL-environment I recall that that one of the contentious issues has been in connection with the sentence in TtL stating that in order to somewhat understand the movements of the mother suns, one may render it as a drawing on paper. Some people claim that this sentence is to be understood as if the explanation in TtL is merely approximately correct and also that it means that the kind of perception which can be most easily put on paper is also the most correct. In my perspective this sentence is merely a recommendation to the reader, if he/she wishes to more easily understand the TtL explanation about the universe, to make a drawing or a sketch on paper as he/she is reading the explanation. Hence, in my view, the sentence does not state anything about the explanation in TtL being just approximately correct, or that the universe is flat or level, in other words that the pair of mother suns rotates in the same plane as the great circle. If for instance I were to explain to someone who has never played football how it is played, then I could phrase it in the same way: In order to somewhat comprehend how the ball is played, you may draw the football field on a piece of paper. This sentence obviously doesn’t say anything about the ball having to stay level with the field at all times. It can also be kicked into the air – corresponding to the TtL-sentence in question not saying anything about the pair of mother suns only being able to move in the plane of the great circle.

The next controversy is linked to the information provided in TtL about the movements of the mother suns being fifty percent inside and fifty percent outside the periphery of the great circle. Those who allege that the term “somewhat” or “approximately”, which in the explanation refers to the understanding of the explanation in TtL, is to be understood as if the explanation in TtL is only approximately correct, often claim that the phrasing fifty percent inside and fifty percent outside is not necessarily to be understood as exactly 50/50, but rather just approximately 50/50. TtL advocate Lars Frølund Jensen has made mathematical calculations showing how this works out in the flat model at many different cases of numbers of rotations (N) for each pair of mother suns – from 1 up until one billion rotations. Since the mother suns in the flat model rotate in the same plane as the forward movement of the pairs, it turns out that the mother sun pair moving anti-clockwise will have a much longer orbit to run through, every time one of the mother suns moves outside the periphery of the great circle, than the corresponding orbit for the mother sun pair rotating clockwise. There are two different ways to calculate the distribution ‘outside/inside’. One method (method 1) is to add the two orbits - one in each pair – venturing outside the periphery of the great circle, with the two orbits going inside, and then calculate the difference percentage-wise. The other method (method 2) is to calculate the distribution inside/outside of each pair separately - and then calculate an average value. Lars F Jensen’s calculations show that the distribution outside/inside the periphery of the greater circle will never become 50/50 in the level model, whether using method 1 or 2. For example by N=8 the distribution will be approximately 53/47 by method 1 and approximately 37/63 by method 2. For more details, please refer to the article ‘About the Universe for Advanced Readers – Part 3: Exact Trajectories.’ Jørgen Degn of the TtL Fund and Publishing Company asserts that the value of N is likely to be much higher and claims that the distribution outside/inside goes towards 50/50 with a higher number of rotations in each pair. He is quite correct in stating that the percentage-wise distribution becomes more even by higher values of N, however by e.g. 50 000 rotations the actual difference  outside/inside  is still about 1200 times as big as the actual difference at N = 8 (calculated by means of method 1) even if the percentage-wise difference has become much smaller. This is because the mother suns have to travel such an enormously longer distance by N=50 000 than by N=8, and even a minute percentage difference equals gigantic distances. When it comes to the helix model there has been some disagreement whether the mother suns really can be said to be inside or outside the plane of the great circle, when they are above or below the plane. Linguistically there are many parallel examples where the concepts of inside and outside are used in this way. Imagine, once again, a football field – we would say that the ball is inside or outside the sideline, even if it is in the air above the field. For instance it happens sometimes that a corner is declared to have been outside the field, if it has been screwed behind the goal line. You have the same phenomenon when an airplane crosses a national boundary in the air. No one would find it odd to say that the airplane is within the border of Denmark, even if it is in the air above Denmark.

So far, no one has made equally accurate calculations of the distribution outside/inside the periphery of the great circle in the helix model, however in animations it does seem as if the “external orbit”, i.e. the trajectory outside the periphery of the great circle is a bit longer than the “internal orbit”, the inside trajectory . However, in this area a lot of research is still left to be done. What does remain certain is that in the flat model all the four mother suns will, at any time, each follow their individual trajectory (even if the trajectories are displacements of each other, two and two), and the four mother suns will also, at any given time, have four different speeds in relation to a fix point. This differs from the helix model, where any movement and speed in one pair will be a perfect reflection of the other pair, and there will only be two trajectories around the central sun to be followed by both pairs, while in the flat model the mother suns will describe four trajectories. In other words, they cannot be claimed to follow a common trajectory round the central sun, such as it is stated in TtL!

Personally, I do not have enough knowledge to assess whether it is otherwise more general in the universe for such planet trajectories, guided by gravitation, to be in the same level plane. It may quite possibly be true, but as far as I understand there are exceptions. In this connection it is, in my view, also important to keep in mind that the mother suns and the central sun were not created by centrifugal eruptions from other planets, rather they were created by God, and the mother suns have been set into rotation, kept up and maintained by the thinking of God!

Also previously it has been claimed that the level model is in all likelihood the correct one, since it has been, so to speak, “approved”, through Knud Brønnum’s drawings and machine fitter A.Andèrs’ model, by Johanne Agerskov. One might comment that Johanne Agerskov did not have any special talents in this field. Generally speaking, she was not particularly talented in any other areas than that of being a medium, - this is what she herself writes in one of her letters, reproduced in one of her copy books. And it is not difficult to understand that it had to be in this way, for it was not by having extraordinary talents within astronomy, religion, history etc that Johanne Agerskov was to serve as the mediator of the thoughts of the Light, but rather by being able to jam her own thoughts and receive the thoughts conveyed to her. Prior to being introduced to her great task as conveyor of TtL, she had no intellectual interests whatsoever according to her sister Emma, née Mathiesen.  Before marrying, she worked for some years as a school teacher teaching drawing, handwriting and physical exercise, and when she married she quit that task in order to take care of her home and children.

But why couldn’t Leo simply communicate through thought inspiration that the model was erroneous? Apparently, things did not work that way. Leo would reply to the questions he was given and which he meant were of important significance, and as far as I know, Ms Agerskov never did ask Leo whether Knud Brønnum’s drawings of the universe were correct. And even if Knud Brønnum was an architect, he was still only human and not one of the youngest, specially chosen to lead and promote the cause of TtL on earth. This is what he himself states in an open letter to the annual meeting in the Society for the Dissemination of TtL in 1936.

It appears from Johanne Agerskov’s letter, reproduced in the copy books, that many people showed great interest in Mr Andèr’s model, however the focus of interest was first and foremost on which way the mother suns rotated. For they discovered by coincidence that the sun pairs’ rotation was reverse, and at first Mr Andèr was not completely happy with that, thinking that he had made a mistake with the model. But then Ms Agerskov thought she could recall that this was exactly what TtL stated, and she investigated the issue further – and quite correctly, it is stated in TtL that the planets have an adverse movement. But it doesn’t seem that anyone cared to investigate the other relevant things stated in TtL – they accepted that everything was clear and correct. It is well worth noting that Mr Andèr’s model only had one engine which by means of straps moved the mother suns around the central sun. Their mutual movement was automatic. Sometimes the sun pairs moved adversely, at other times they moved in the same direction, as we can see from Ms Agerskov’s letters.

However, there is another aspect of the TtL explanation which has been the subject of debate, and that this is what in TtL is called an open helical orbit, meant to describe the movement of the mother suns. In my view the movement produced in the helix model satisfies the designation ‘open helical orbit’ better than the one produced in the two-dimensional or flat model, where the movement is best characterized as completely flat loops. If you add movement to the helix model, the planet pairs will describe a perfect, open helical shape when rotating on their “journey” round the central sun.

This is Knud Brønnum’s drawing of the universe. Machine fitter A. Andèr used his drawings as his point of departure when he built his model.

Some years ago Jørgen Degn, presented new models of the universe on his website www.vandrermodlyset.net/forum/. Here you can see, among other things, a very beautiful animation of the two-dimensional model/plane model, however unfortunately with the minus that the mother sun pairs rotate in the same direction, which they are not supposed to do according to the explanation of TtL. Degn has also made a data animation of the mother sun orbits, such as they will appear in the flat model. He has designed the program in such a way that it can use different numbers for the amount of rotations (=N).

For many years it has been considered enigmatic how many times the two mother sun pairs in fact rotate around the central sun. Personally I consider myself having found the answer to the enigma about the number of rotations; or rather, there is no enigma at all, for the answer is in TtL if one decides totally and completely to trust what is stated there. This is not at all the first time one has the experience of not finding the answer to an important question in TtL. In “Questions and Answers” Leo on several occasions mildly rebukes the people asking questions, since they fail to read the answer to their question in the TtL text, for the answer is there, in fact. This is also the case with the issue of the number of rotations which the mother sun pairs make on their way around the central sun. The answer is in this sentence:

"After approximately 3 million years the a-b pair will have positioned itself such as to replace the c-d pair to the right hand side of the central sun and the c-d pair vice versa."

Personally I have read this sentence many times previously without completely realizing that this is where the answer is “hidden”. For what does it actually say? Well, it states that after 3 million years a-b will be in the position of b-c. And what is the implication of that? When it is described in this way – without specifying the number of rotations, it cannot mean anything else than that the pairs of mother suns rotate exactly as many times as they need in order to assume each others’ positions. Consequently: They must either rotate halfway, or once, in the course of half an orbit around the central sun. If they rotate halfway they pairs will be positioned this way:


                                                  c   -   d                 central sun                    b   -   a

This position will imply that the pairs of mother suns have changed positions, but they are in reverse order compared with the point of departure.  A and c, starting in the innermost position, are now in the outermost position, and b and c, which started furthest out will now be in the innermost position. I think this is an insufficient basis for claiming that they have assumed each others’ positions – because they are in the wrong order. I therefore conclude that in order for the statement of TtL to be fulfilled, the mother suns must have done a full rotation, such that they, after having done half an orbit around the central sun will have this position:


                                                  d   -   c                 central sun                    a   -   b


I have taken a great interest in Jørgen’s planet orbit animation and have investigated it very thoroughly. All my investigations have been based on the model Jørgen Degn published in his forum, where N=8. The result of these investigations, and many other issues, are in my article “About the Universe for Advanced Readers” as well as in the other articles about the universe to be found on the website.

A still picture from Jørgen Degn’s animation of the planet orbits of the pairs of mother suns. In this animation one can follow the mother suns as they are moving from the initial position, as described in TtL, right up until the animation ends with the above image, where the planet orbits have been shown all the way round, in relation to both pairs of mother suns. Illustration: Jørgen Degn

This is a still picture of the orbit of the mother sun of the helix model – seen from a position immediately above. The picture has been taken just before the point where the pairs of mother suns have done a rotation around the central sun – with two mutual rotations in each pair. As you will see, the movements of the pairs of mother suns will always form perfect reflections of each other, in terms of speed as well as position. The mother suns will take turns in being in the outer loop and inner loop, respectively, and at this value of N (=2) they will have two outer loops and two inner loops in total during the course of a full rotation – and their total orbit length around the central sun will therefore be identical (for all four of them). The red loops also fully satisfy the TtL designations of “an open helical loop” and “helical circle”. In the illustration it may seem as if the outer loop is somewhat longer than the inner loop, but on this aspect one must keep in mind that the rotation takes place in 3 dimensions, and therefore it become extremely complicated to calculate the exact orbit length. But if it is the case that one mother sun in a pair reduces the speed minutely, then in the helix model exactly the same will happen with the corresponding mother sun in the other pair. Perhaps in future a very competent person may be able to calculate the orbit lengths. Klick here to see the animation. Illustration: Sverre Avnskog













































In order to further illustrate how incredibly harmonious and symmetrical the helix model with 2 rotations per orbit around the central sun is, I have inserted some assist lines in a still picture of the model as seen from immediately above. The square inside the great circle appears by drawing a line between the four “nexus” of the rotation – in other words, where the mother suns in each pair are positioned immediately above and under each other. The great cross appears by drawing lines between the four positions where the mother suns of each pair are positioned immediately in front of each other. These 8 positions together divide the great circle in 8 circular arcs of exactly equal size. The image of the universe according to the helix model expresses a state of near perfect symmetry and equilibrium – just as God would have created it!! Illustration: Sverre Avnskog

A person who has worked a lot with the helix model and the flat model is the translator of the Norwegian edition of Toward the Light!, Petter Musken. He has made animations of both models. In order to see Petter Musken’s animation of the helix model as seen from above and with only one mutual rotation between the mother sun pairs, please refer to his website:  http://thelight.net/kingdom.htm




Oslo, September 2, 2007
Sverre Avnskog

English translation by
Jørgen Malling Christensen

I have also made an animation of the flat model. I have chosen to let the mothersun pairs rotate 14 times around the sentral sun(N=14), to show the maximum difference between the lengths of the orbits inside and outside the periphery of the great circle. Illustration: Sverre Avnskog