inhabited planets - Printable Version +- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums) +-- Forum: Bring4th Studies (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Strictly Law of One Material (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2) +--- Thread: inhabited planets (/showthread.php?tid=10299) Pages:
1
2
|
inhabited planets - dreamliner - 01-19-2015 There is some confusion about the percentages given in Law of One as regard to the inhabited planets. While session 71 talks about 10%; Quote:71.9 Questioner: Are the processes that we are talking about processes that occur on many planets in our Milky Way Galaxy, or do they occur on all planets, or what percentage? session 16 mentions "one fifth", which is 20%. Quote:16.25 Questioner: How many inhabited planets are there in our galaxy? RE: inhabited planets - Minyatur - 01-19-2015 Doesn't the first one talk about 3D+ entities while the second considers all dimensions of counciousness? But how can a planet exist and not be of 1D? 80% of planets are in the void? RE: inhabited planets - Bluebell - 01-19-2015 urrrrk. i too think the first question is 3D only. but 10% is lower than i expected... w varying d it's still quite low... not that i'm complaining. too many is not merry! wuts this void ur referring to? RE: inhabited planets - Matt1 - 01-19-2015 Even 10% of our local Galaxy is massive. Nasa says that there is 100,000,000,000 or 100 Billion Stars in our Galaxy. Then if you assume that other Galaxies have the same type of pertages, Nasa says we have 100 thousand million Galaxies. Its insane! Now think that most of us will never fully explore even our own planet , its really awesome to think that there is so much out there. Hopefully we will be able to develop the technology to travel within our lifetimes. RE: inhabited planets - dreamliner - 01-19-2015 Percentage of 3rd density inhabitation is given as 27% in session 16. Quote:16.27 Questioner: Can you tell me what percentage of those are third, fourth, fifth, sixth density, etc.? Roughly, very roughly. If 10% was referring to 3rd density only, and if "one-fifth (20%)" was referring to the planets inhabited by any density, then 27% of 20% makes 5.4%. RE: inhabited planets - dreamliner - 01-19-2015 But, 2D+3D makes nearly 10%: 20% + 27% = 47% 47% of "one-fifth" (or 20%) = 9.4% which might be pronounced as "approximately 10%", as in session 71.9 RE: inhabited planets - Bluebell - 01-19-2015 ow math! i lost u at hello... RE: inhabited planets - dreamliner - 01-19-2015 Yet, another math reveals another discrepancy: 17% + 20% + 27% + 16% + 6% = 86% 100% - 86% = 14% Quote:16.27 Questioner: Can you tell me what percentage of those are third, fourth, fifth, sixth density, etc.? Roughly, very roughly. Where is that "approximately thirty-five percent of the intelligent planets, which do not fit in the percentiles" in this math. RE: inhabited planets - dreamliner - 01-20-2015 Session 71.9 can also be interpreted in a way that; Ra had meant whole universe while giving 10%, not only milky way. However, can Ra know of such a percentage about the 3D inhabited planets in whole universe? RE: inhabited planets - Parsons - 01-20-2015 This is all in hindsight and I think Don did a terrific job of questioning in general. However, there would have been less confusion if he would have asked something like: Of this galaxy that we refer to as the Milky Way, how many stars are there? How many of those stars have planets? How many of those planets have 2nd density life? 3rd? etc RE: inhabited planets - indiGo33 - 01-20-2015 Taken from Tloo study guide V.2 Quote:17 % of the planets have only 1st density entities; RE: inhabited planets - Bluebell - 01-20-2015 (01-20-2015, 05:59 AM)dreamliner Wrote: Session 71.9 can also be interpreted in a way that; Ra had meant whole universe while giving 10%, not only milky way. where is it said Ra meant universe? to me it seemed Don asked about Milkyway. RE: inhabited planets - dreamliner - 01-20-2015 The interpretation of those percentages by "The Law of One study guide v2" might be the distorted version of the reality. It also omits that "mysterious 35%" mentioned in session 16.27 above. Confusion is better than distortion, in my opinion. That guide both interprets those percentages as "intersections" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersection_%28set_theory%29 ), and sums them alltogether & ends up with 86% (as in above). However, in my calculation, I assumed those percentages as "normalized" or lean figures, not intersections. In order to be able to sum all those percentages together, those percentages must be "normalized" or lean. That is, in 3rd density percentage there should not be any other density included. On the other hand, how can "3rd density, 2nd density and 1st density percentages" be isolated from each other, as these densities exist/work together. 3D is dependant on 2D and 1D. We don't know exaclty whether 4D is dependant on 2D and 1D, but we know for sure that 4D is not dependant on 3D, that is 4D can both coexist with 3D and exist without 3D (earth will be a 1D+2D+4D planet for some time). Higher densities also aren't quite certain with regard to their dependancies/flexibilites. Can a planet be 1D+2D+3D+5D, or 1D+2D+4D+5D, or 1D+5D+6D. The Law of One series only contain Venus and Earth as examples. Therefore, at least we can conclude that, it would be erroneous to sum 1D, 2D and 3D percentages together. Because 3D percentage, %27, contains 1D and 2D percentages as well. As a result, assuming that the 4D and 5D percentages do not contain any other density; 27% + 16% + 6% = 49% which leaves quite a room for that mysterious 35%. In this calculation, 4D and 5D percentages might also need to be corrected by subtracting other densities' intersections (which seems as can't be done with the existing data at hand). For example, I didn't check but I guess Venus was a 4D/5D planet in the past and now is a 5D/6D planet (although there are no 6D inhabitants), and earth will be a 1D+2D+4D planet for some time in future (which means there might be many other similar planets out there affecting the percentages spoken). RE: inhabited planets - AnthroHeart - 01-20-2015 Venus probably looks like a paradise to those in 5D. I had a dream I was on Venus once, but it looked ordinary. I was talking to someone else there. RE: inhabited planets - Bluebell - 01-20-2015 (01-20-2015, 04:36 PM)dreamliner Wrote: Confusion is better than distortion, in my opinion. LOL ok, u once again lose me w math. but i don't think any density is dependant on another... though it's probably because i'm rebelling against that line of thought. RE: inhabited planets - anagogy - 01-20-2015 (01-20-2015, 05:59 AM)dreamliner Wrote: Session 71.9 can also be interpreted in a way that; Ra had meant whole universe while giving 10%, not only milky way. That is how I always interpreted the passage. Quote:Questioner: Are the processes that we are talking about processes that occur on many planets in our Milky Way Galaxy, or do they occur on all planets, or what percentage? And as to the second conundrum: Quote: As Ra said, the 35% do *not* fit into the percentiles given for densities in the Milky Way Galaxy, thus, they were not included in the percentiles. (01-19-2015, 12:00 PM)Minyatur Wrote: Doesn't the first one talk about 3D+ entities while the second considers all dimensions of counciousness? Many planets do not exist at a particular density level, but exist as portions of the Logos. Quote: RE: inhabited planets - dreamliner - 01-20-2015 (01-20-2015, 06:48 PM)anagogy Wrote: As Ra said, the 35% do *not* fit into the percentiles given for densities in the Milky Way Galaxy, thus, they were not included in the percentiles. I couldn't follow how that mysterious 35% do not fit into the percentiles. My guess was/is, that 35% represents the "creatures" such as spirit/mind complexes (mentioned in session 17.38) and/or angelic entities which Ra might have implied in 17.37. Quote:17.37 Questioner: Well, who inhabit the astral and who inhabit the devachanic planes? RE: inhabited planets - dreamliner - 01-20-2015 Nevertheless, I am not quite sure whether my line of thought above is correct. 1- If it is correct; then the normalized/isolated/lean figures of 1D, 2D and 3D must be: 1D = 17% 2D = 3% 3D = 7% 2- If it is not correct; a) either 35% is also an intersection and can not be classified into either densities; because the creatures/entities inhabiting (together with other densities) 35% of 67 million planets, are angelic beings or spirit/mind complexes (which might not be following ordinary 1D to 7D evolution path/spectrum). b) or there is some different/mysterious math pertaining to that "mysterious 35%". RE: inhabited planets - anagogy - 01-20-2015 (01-20-2015, 08:38 PM)dreamliner Wrote:I think its just that portion that is dwelling spiritually as a portion of the Logos. These are probably different kinds of astrological influences -- the holographic Logos reflecting itself in the very stars and certain planets in significant archetypical patterns and such.(01-20-2015, 06:48 PM)anagogy Wrote: As Ra said, the 35% do *not* fit into the percentiles given for densities in the Milky Way Galaxy, thus, they were not included in the percentiles. So we subtract that 35% from the total amount of intelligent planets, because it doesn't dwell at any particular density level, and cannot be classified as such, and Ra took their percentages from the remaining set of intelligent planets which could be reliably pigeon holed into their appropriate density labels. RE: inhabited planets - native - 01-20-2015 In 16.34 and 16.35 Ra states that the word galaxy was in reference to our own solar system. Session 71 is referring to the entire Milky Way. RE: inhabited planets - anagogy - 01-20-2015 (01-20-2015, 11:25 PM)Icaro Wrote: In 16.34 and 16.35 Ra states that the word galaxy was in reference to our own solar system. Session 71 is referring to the entire Milky Way. Well, that may be true in general, but in 71.9 it reads: Quote:71.9 Questioner: Are the processes that we are talking about processes that occur on many planets in our Milky Way Galaxy, or do they occur on all planets, or what percentage? It appears that they are talking about all planets in this particular exchange. So not just the Milky Way. RE: inhabited planets - dreamliner - 01-21-2015 (01-20-2015, 11:08 PM)anagogy Wrote:(01-20-2015, 08:38 PM)dreamliner Wrote:(01-20-2015, 06:48 PM)anagogy Wrote: As Ra said, the 35% do *not* fit into the percentiles given for densities in the Milky Way Galaxy, thus, they were not included in the percentiles. I don't think that Ra meant "the portion which dwells spiritually as a portion of the Logos" by that "mysterious 35%", because the question by Don Elkins was: "How many inhabited planets are there in our galaxy?" in 16.25. The inital answer by Ra was: "We are assuming that you intend all dimensions of consciousness or densities of awareness in this question. Approximately one-fifth of all planetary entities contain awareness of one or more densities. Some planetary spheres are hospitable only for certain densities. Your planetary sphere, for instance, is at this time hospitable to levels or densities one, two, three, and four." Since there are 67 million planets which contain awareness of one or more densities (as revealed by Ra in 16.26), there must be 67x5=335 million planets totally in milky way. "The portion which dwells spiritually as a portion of the Logos" must be the remainder four-fifth (not 35%) of all planets in milky way; that is 335-67=268million. RE: inhabited planets - dreamliner - 01-21-2015 Since there are 250 billion stars in milky way (as mentioned by Ra), 335 million planets looks quite low compared to the total number of stars. Considering that solar system has 9/10 planets, one would expect at least 250 billion planets in milky way. Perhaps "one-fifth" was a misspelling/mispronunciation or mishearing of "one-fiftieth". Or, the low quantity of planets is because of the young stars being the majority in milky way. However, astronomers'/scientists' predictions are towards a figure between 100-400 billion planets, which is way too high than 335 million (or even higher than 67x50): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#Stars_and_planets https://web.archive.org/web/20140723213047/http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2012/07/full/ It seems that the microlensing technique they use to survey the number of planets is quite sensitive; "it can detect a planet which is as far from its star as Saturn is from Sun, or as close as Mercury is to Sun, and it is also sensitive to detecting planets as small as Mercury". In this case, it can also be claimed that 67 million could also have been misspelled; perhaps Ra forgot to add 3 more zeros while spelling the number of inhabited planets. If it was/is so, then the number of planets containing the awareness of one or more densities would be 67 billion and the total number of planets in milky way would be 335 billion. RE: inhabited planets - βαθμιαίος - 01-21-2015 I think Don was confused by the 35%, too. That sentence wasn't included in the originally published version of Book I: http://www.lawofone.info/show-diff.php?s=16&dv=o-e#27 RE: inhabited planets - Bluebell - 01-21-2015 u can't omit sentences because tthey don't make immediate sense. RE: inhabited planets - dreamliner - 01-22-2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_location_in_the_universe Quote:6.24 Questioner: Do any of the UFOs that are presently reported come from other planets here at this time, or do you have this knowledge? Quote:16.33 Questioner: With such a large number of planets in this galaxy, I was wondering if— you say there are approximately five hundred Confederation planets. That seems to me to be a relatively small percentage of the total number of fourth- and fifth-density planets around. Is there any reason for this relatively small percentage in this Confederation? Gould belt ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gould_Belt ) may be the neighborhood where the confederation (which Ra are members of) is located. RE: inhabited planets - dreamliner - 01-23-2015 However, Gould belt (3000 light years across) seems a bit too large for 7 star systems. The exact location must be local interstellar cloud ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Interstellar_Cloud ) plus some other neighboring stars. http://interstellar.jpl.nasa.gov/interstellar/probe/introduction/neighborhood.html http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap010318.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars_and_brown_dwarfs RE: inhabited planets - Bluebell - 01-23-2015 lol i want to make a witty stargate reference. wut is a star system? RE: inhabited planets - dreamliner - 01-23-2015 (01-23-2015, 07:57 AM)Bluebell Wrote: lol i want to make a witty stargate reference. george lucas must have thought as I did; put "star" in place of "solar" in "solar system", then you have "star system". However, it seems that astronomy has been using the "star system" concept for 2 or more gravitationally coupled stars ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_system ). The most suitable phrase to use for referring to planetary systems -other than solar system- seems as "extrasolar planetary system" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_system#Speculation_on_extrasolar_planetary_systems ). RE: inhabited planets - Bluebell - 01-23-2015 so we're a solar system but Sirius for example would be a star system... or a small galaxy according to Ra. |