Quote:28.9 Questioner: Then what you are saying is that the lenticular star system which we call a galaxy that we find ourselves in with approximately 250 billion other suns like our own was created by a single Logos. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

(02-24-2011, 05:56 AM)yossarian Wrote: Does anyone know?

Quote:28.9 Questioner: Then what you are saying is that the lenticular star system which we call a galaxy that we find ourselves in with approximately 250 billion other suns like our own was created by a single Logos. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

I don't get it. They're talking about our galaxy right? Our galaxy is not lenticular... it's spiral.

They mention this again and again.

Anyone know?

Quote:lenticular galaxy (plural lenticular galaxies)

1. (astronomy) A galaxy that like spiral galaxies has a flat disk but unlike them has lost most of its interstellar matter and therefore has no spirals; considered a transitional form between spirals and elliptical galaxies.

Quote: I'll call the lenticular galaxy that we are in the major galaxy

(02-24-2011, 04:49 PM)yossarian Wrote: Of course, but Don was a scientist. Shouldn't his first thought to be to call our galaxy a spiral galaxy?

Our galaxy does not even look like a lens. Lenticular galaxies don't have spiral arms.

Why would he say the complicated word "lenticular" unless he meant the scientific category? No one uses that word in common speech. It's pretty much only used to refer to the scientific category of lenticular galaxies, which are quite a bit different from spiral galaxies, and our spiral galaxy is considered a very average spiral galaxy.

Don says:

Quote:It looks like a flat out error but given his education why would he make that kind of error? Why would Ra support him on it?

He makes the error again and again, like 6-7 times.

(02-24-2011, 02:57 PM)yossarian Wrote: I already knew that. The issue is that our galaxy is emphatically not lenticular. It's 100% spiral.

Why would Don make this mistake and why would Ra support him on it?

Larson, SPU Chapter XXXVI - The Galactic Cycle Wrote:Closely connected with the velocity is the shape of the rotating structure. The correlation in this case is so obvious that in actual practice the velocity is generally inferred from the shape rather than measured directly, although measurements have been made in some cases where conditions are favorable. Increased rotational velocity in the elliptical galaxies results' in greater eccentricity. Beginning with the globular clusters, which are rotating very slowly and are spherical or nearly spherical, the elliptical units pass through all stages of eccentricity down to strongly lenticular shapes. At this point the spiral disk develops. The structure of the young spiral can be described as loose: the arms are thick and widely separated and the nucleus is rather inconspicuous. As the galaxy grows older and larger the nucleus becomes more prominent and the increased rotational velocity causes the arms to thin out and wind up more tightly. In the limiting condition the galaxy is practically all nucleus and the spiral arms are wound around this central mass so tightly that in effect they become part of it. These changes in appearance in the final stage account for some of the apparent deviations from the normal relation between size and age. There are a number of very large galaxies which are classified as elliptical, although they are greatly in excess of the size which normally results in the development of the spiral structure. The logical explanation is that these are not actually elliptical galaxies; they are the tightly wound, rapidly rotating, giant spirals which have reached the end of the road as galaxies and are ready to take the next step in the evolutionary cycle. Some particularly interesting inferences along this line can be drawn from the characteristics of the giant galaxy Messier 87, one of the well-known examples of this class, and this subject will receive further attention later.

(02-25-2011, 12:12 AM)kycahi Wrote: I agree with zenmaster. Although Hubble did invent the galaxy classification early in the last century, before the Hubble Telescope went up (after Don died) we had photos from the Lick Observatory showing galaxies from the edge that looked lens-shaped, ones viewed from near perpendicular that looked as though they would be lens-shaped viewed from the edge and some that looked like glowing footballs. Don's education was in engineering and likely did not include astronomy at all; mine didn't. So when he talked about our "lenticular galaxy," he was asking Ra to distinguish it from their sometime using "galaxy" when they meant our solar system.

Ra apologized for the error, saying they didn't always have the right vocabulary for big systems. If Ra could mistakenly use galaxy for our planetary system, I forgive them for not getting that our stellar galaxy was correctly a "spiral" and not a "lenticular."

Quote:13.9 Questioner: Then can you tell me how the galaxy and planetary systems were formed?

Ra: I am Ra. You must imagine a great leap of thought in this query, for at the last query the physical, as you call, it, universes were not yet born.

The energies moved in increasingly intelligent patterns until the individualization of various energies emanating from the creative principle of intelligent infinity became such as to be co-Creators. Thus the so-called physical matter began. The concept of light is instrumental in grasping this great leap of thought as this vibrational distortion of infinity is the building block of that which is known as matter, the light being intelligent and full of energy, thus being the first distortion of intelligent infinity which was called by the creative principle.

This light of love was made to have in its occurrences of being certain characteristics, among them the infinite whole paradoxically described by the straight line, as you would call it. This paradox is responsible for the shape of the various physical illusion entities you call solar systems, galaxies, and planets of revolving and tending towards the lenticular.

Quote:I don't know how you cannot see the context given

(02-25-2011, 02:03 PM)yossarian Wrote: Anyway it's still strange, although my best guess now is that Ra was using lenticular as an adjective which Don then picked up.

(02-25-2011, 04:47 PM)kycahi Wrote: [quote='yossarian' pid='30326' dateline='1298657011']
Anyway it's still strange, although my best guess now is that Ra was using lenticular as an adjective which Don then picked up.

yossarian Wrote:This makes no sense. We aren't in a lenticular galaxy. No one ever looks at a picture of the milky way from the side and says "Hey, that looks like a lens! Downright lenticular I'd say!"

Wiki Wrote:Maps of the Milky Way's spiral structure are notoriously uncertain and exhibit striking differences.[41][42][40][43][44][45][46][47] Some 150 years after Alexander (1852)[48] first suggested that the Milky Way was a spiral, there is currently no consensus on the number or nature of the Galaxy's spiral arms.

Ra Wrote:This light of love was made to have in its occurrences of being certain characteristics, among them the infinite whole paradoxically described by the straight line, as you would call it. This paradox is responsible for the shape of the various physical illusion entities you call solar systems, galaxies, and planets of revolving and tending towards the lenticular.

28.9 Questioner: Then what you are saying is that the lenticular star system which we call a galaxy that we find ourselves in with approximately 250 billion other suns like our own was created by a single Logos. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

(07-21-2011, 09:16 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: WHAT?! Could this possibly mean that Ra is not infallible? Or perhaps that limitations in the Questioner's mind could distort the communication toward greater confusion? Wild!

(07-22-2011, 07:29 AM)zenmaster Wrote: That follow-up was related to the fallibility of the stellar/galactic evolution model currently in use, and the fact that Larson suggested a more accurate model decades ago. Isn't it amazing that something can be 5 times younger than previously thought and go unnoticed? That's a 'broken' cosmology.

As far as Ra being fallible, sure. To merely put concepts to words is to necessarily, automatically become fallible. The key or art with effective communication is to reduce the chance of misunderstanding. What 'truth' can you really offer with the constraints of the channeling format, considering the biases of the reader? Each word used has a slightly different meaning and emphasis placed in the reader's mind.

(07-22-2011, 03:48 PM)unity100 Wrote: lets get to the bottom of this - you have a beef with some information in the material, and you need Ra to be fallible in order for that information not to disturb you. this is the picture youre drawing with your concern going on and on in all threads, taking the form of 'ra's fallibleness'.

Quote:why not cut to the chase and just pop the real deal ?

Quote:The "real deal" is that channeled information is limited by the distortions present in the mind of the channeler, the channeling group, and those who read said channeled information. There is no such thing as an "objective" contact.

So as to bring this back to the topic of this thread. If Ra said we live in a lenticular galaxy, when in fact we live in a spiral galaxy... no biggie. Either something got lost in translation, or Ra specifically chose that word knowing it was incorrect in order to guard against future canonization of the material by fundamentalist thinkers.