Density/Dimension clarification

[Peregrinus]

Unless gravity as we know it is a 1st density effect...

[Questioner]

Unless gravity as we know it is a 1st density effect...

I might well misinterpret what Ra says about this, but my impression is that 1st density consciousness only occurs once a physical planet has developed enough to have the elements present. If that's accurate, then gravity would not be a 1st density effect, because space-time, galaxies, and solar systems seem to have gravity and develop before planets.

[unity100]

1st density consciousness on a planet maybe. but then again, elements are also present in space.

[Questioner]

This connects up with my latest post in the thread on this subforum, "there isn't much freedom."

[Lavazza]

I again find myself with more time on my hands, at least as far as today is concerned.

What I am presenting is my distillation and partial reconciliation of some of the Ra material with its reference sources and a little modern physics thrown in. Although it is relatively sound in some areas, it is embarrassingly weak in others. Ultimately, I am absolutely certain that it is completely wrong as is everything that we try to explain in 3D.

Because I like this dialog so much, I wanted to press you to talk more about the areas of your thinking that you feel are embarrassingly weak. Maybe we can firm some of them up by conversing- although I do not mean to put you on the spot of course. Your disclaimer of not being an authority is fully accepted.

Not to quibble over words, but I would say "in it is contained all the physical dimensions of space and time". The densities that make up the Octave having been established prior to the Octave's creation, are measures of the spiritual progress of the m/b/s contained within the creation. As a crude analogy, consider the universe as analogous to the school, the m/b/s within it, the students, their densities representing the grades within the school. As they advance within the school, the students are able to use more and more of the school's facilities. Note that the existence of the grades (their number and character and lessons to be learned), and the testing that would be performed to allow promotion from one grade to another were all in existence before the school. Note also that this clearly indicates that there is "something" which is greater than our universe.

I'm jumping off on to a new topic here but I think it may be safely considered relevant to this thread... But what do you think, beginning of Octave = beginning of Universe? This is often puzzled me. And more fundamental in my confusion once this is taken as correct in premise is, how can something which is infinite (presumably the universe) spring forth from something with is finite (presumably the plank length sized mote that was the origin of the big bang). I may be erroneous in that I may be extrapolating upon metaphors given by science for the mainstream to understand- in which case most of this paragraph could be discarded

Here again I humbly ask your patience as I pick at your words. Although we do have seven chakras that may be in various states of activation or blockage in any density, I see it rather as our seven bodies that move between activation and potentiation as we move through s/t densities. The same can be said for a planet, with the caveat that a planet may have multiple bodies in activation simultaneously (I am of the opinion that only one body of a m/b/s complex may be activated at given time, but I am not absolutely convinced of this).

The exception might be a dual activated entity, that is 3rd and 4th density activation near the time of harvest / density change. This would be a transitory sort of scenario of course.

(quick context for the next quote- referring to how Ra appeared to the Egyptians)

If the above are the appropriate quotes, I do not see the reference to "lowering vibrational rate" that you referred to. That said, I am certain that some physical change (call it vibrational rate or something else) is necessary for a 6D entity to be viewed by 3D entities. If this is what you mean by "dimensional quality", then I agree.

Quite right, and may I add "good work!" in your ability to find and put together those quotes. I'm almost certain now that I am mentally combining different sources of information with Ra's information. In Dolores Cannon's book 'The Convoluted Universe' one of her regressed patients speaks of beholding the construction of the Great Pyramid. They spoke of 'golden beings' that were invisible from the waist down, if I am remembering correctly. Quite a similar description at least. Then I must also have merged something Bashar spoke of in explaining how his craft enter our dimensional space/time in order to be seen, and thus describing how vibrational frequency has to be temporarily reduced (which takes some effort, apparently). Yup, it's all getting mushy up in that noggin of mine!

I did not say that things that were close in s/t were far apart in t/s. I said that things that are close in 3-space are far apart in 3-time. This is due to the reciprocal natures of time and space. What creates the stages of s/t and t/s are the mappings of 3-time into scalar time(in s/t), and 3-space into scalar space (in t/s). Again, I would refer you to the RST thread for more investigation. Suffice it to say for now, that in s/t, time ("now") is a scalar which represents the projection/compression of the three cardinal time coordinates of 3-time onto one unit-less scalar point. The same can be said of space in t/s.

Quite fascinating. I'll print out a copy of the RST thread and hopefully get in to it this week. Stay tuned for more questions from me, in that case.

I recommend that you seek to understand Ra's material on Ra's own terms. Do this without trying to correlate it with physicists' theories about dark matter. Once you are comfortable with understanding how Ra's own words fit in with Ra's other words, temporarily take "density" as something related to energy/vibration levels for now. After you understand how Ra's comments fit together, only then would it be productive to compare a complete picture of Ra's density discussions with a complete picture of "dark matter" theories. I feel that you are trying to combine two tangents and that your studies may be more productive if you take things one at a time here.

This is sound advice, and I thank you for it. As it so happens, this is exactly what my modus operandi has been for the last (almost) two years in my awareness of the Ra material. Although I make no claim to understand how all of Ra's words fit in with each other completely, I am at a point where I want to know what the heck Ra is talking about as regards densities. It may be my particular layman's interest in cutting edge physics / science that motivates me, and perhaps it is not the wisest approach, but I feel compelled to put Ra's information together with what our egg-head friends in the lab coats are saying. I suppose the other side of the coin here is that I also intellectually understand that understanding is not in any way central or necessary for my spiritual evolution at this time- I attempt understanding in this fashion because it excites me to do so!

Are you familiar with traditional Russian nested dolls? For someone living on the outer surface of the third doll out from the center, everything above them would just be an enclosed shell. For us, that's the edge of fourth dimension which we're just starting to poke into.

A beautiful comparison.

Ra refers to 1st density as the fundamental elements of earth, air, fire, and water learning from each other. Current scientific theory is that Venus has an abundant of elements and elemental forces. The planet has no shortage of rocks, chemically active atmosphere, cloud cover, lightning, etc. It's easy to suppose that if there was any degree of consciousness inside elemental forces, they would have no shortage of catalyst and learning opportunities in such an active environment.

I hadn't considered it that way before, but you're absolutely right, it would be a very exciting environment in which to experience 1st density, as 1st density. Other places that spring to mind would be tumultuous Jupiter and it's moons. Saturn's too.

Unless gravity as we know it is a 1st density effect...

Actually gravity has been shown to exist whenever there is matter, regardless of how small the matter may be. Gravity is quite interesting though, and maybe a worthwhile thread for later on would be extrapolating the spiritual reasons or symbolism behind it and other physical forces. For a later time I think.

That's all for now, L&L to all.
~Lavazza

[3D Sunset]

Because I like this dialog so much, I wanted to press you to talk more about the areas of your thinking that you feel are embarrassingly weak. Maybe we can firm some of them up by conversing- although I do not mean to put you on the spot of course. Your disclaimer of not being an authority is fully accepted.

Suffice it, for now, to say that I feel that I have constructed a rather rickety bridge between Ra, RST and modern physics. I fully expect that given either a strong wind, or a good, hard shake, that it will crumble into the abyss. When this occurs, I will gladly point it out.

I'm jumping off on to a new topic here but I think it may be safely considered relevant to this thread... But what do you think, beginning of Octave = beginning of Universe?

You'll find that the term "octave" is also ambiguous in the Law of One. First, it is sometimes used for "density" as in the following (other examples abound):

This is often puzzled me. And more fundamental in my confusion once this is taken as correct in premise is, how can something which is infinite (presumably the universe) spring forth from something with is finite (presumably the plank length sized mote that was the origin of the big bang). I may be erroneous in that I may be extrapolating upon metaphors given by science for the mainstream to understand- in which case most of this paragraph could be discarded

Here, we're going to shake my bridge a little bit. As for the plank length restriction, I think that it will eventually fall away once modern physics and mathematics come to terms with the infinities that occur whenever they expand or contact the universe to its extremes. My problem has been trying to reconcile my intuitive sense of cosmology with modern physics and RST.

Let me expand with a simple example. My intuitive sense is that the universe is cyclical, and begins in a big bang (so to speak), and then ends in a big crunch. This is also the cosmological view espoused by many religions. (Think of Brahma's great breath, for example). Per Dewey Larson, a fundamental tenet of RST is that the universe is Euclidean. Now a truly Euclidean (or flat) Universe would never coalesce due to its own gravity (this requires a closed universe based upon an elliptical geometry). So I have an inherent issue here. At the present time though, current cosmology implies that the universe is open and based upon a hyperbolic geometry. It is interesting to note, that the amount of matter/energy known is amazingly close to the amount necessary to make a flat universe. After that the simple addition or subtraction of a single atom is all that is needed to make it elliptical or hyperbolic.

It is also possible that this may be resolved by whatever theory eventually explains why inflation (i.e., movement faster than the speed of light) happened in the very early universe, but I can't say. And although it is possible that RST would also work with a non Euclidean universe, I always liked the simplicity of that tenet of Dewey's.

Umm.. I think I digressed. Did I beat around your question enough, or should I babble on?

The exception might be a dual activated entity, that is 3rd and 4th density activation near the time of harvest / density change. This would be a transitory sort of scenario of course.

In deed.

Love and Light,

3D Sunset

[Sparkle]

We see that Ra uses the terms density and dimension seemingly interchangeably.

If I remember correctly, someone compared this to a colour chart, which Ra mentions as well. The chart goes from the ultra-violet spectrum to the infra-red. I realize now as well, this is in correlation to our chakras. We typically are in the infra-red (very dense), and we want to move to the ultra-violet, similar to shooting our energy from the root to the crown where the heavens are.

The higher densities (4th, 5th, etc.) are in the ultra-violet, where they are light, and undetectable to our senses, at least to sight.

[Questioner]

3Ds, I admire your courage in getting your bridge shaken down to its individual Plancks.

[Sparkle]

Now and then there is an opportunity for third density entities who have made this choice to be harvested to fourth density.

I was so confused about the Harvest, but didn't want to over-whelm myself with it right now.

This reminds me of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but a good harvest

P.s. I at this time, with the little I know do not believe that densities are different life-forms. For example, I think a sociopath could be a second, or even first-density entity.

[Questioner]

I studied the Law of One material for about a year before I got comfortable exploring the Harvest concept. Up until recently, I just watched the Harvest discussions pass on by. I admired the parade's many colorful floats and bands. But I didn't join in myself. Feel free to take things at your own pace.

I think the Law of One is pretty clear that humanity is in third density, plus higher density Wanderers. Lower densities don't have the ability to make a moral choice whether to serve self or others, they just live and react with elemental consciousness (first density), group or instinctive consciousness (second density). While looking up miniature golf citations (:exclamation I inadvertently discovered Ra's mention that our Earth currently has no second density creatures. Since we know that sociopaths are not just abstract forces of earth, air, water, and fire, then they must be third-density or higher, on the negative path.

[Sparkle]

I inadvertently discovered Ra's mention that our Earth currently has no second density creatures.

Good afternoon

I think it was on the first page, though, that there was a Ra quote that said a cat, for example, would (or could?) be second density.

There really should be book, chapter, and paragraph references, just like when debating scripture in a religion forum.

[Questioner]

There are. If you go to lawofone.info and do a search, you can then click on Show Question Numbers. This shows the session number (just as in the books), plus a question number within each session - starting with number 1 each time, going up each round of Ra and Don's interaction.

[Aaron]

While looking up miniature golf citations (:exclamation I inadvertently discovered Ra's mention that our Earth currently has no second density creatures.

Questioner, I see tons of what I would consider to be second-density creatures here! Can you please explain? lol

[Questioner]

I don't get it either, Aaron. I thought that trees, dogs, etc. were second density lifeforms, but then I came across that quote from Ra. So I need to find a better way to integrate these ideas too. Maybe someone else can explain it to both of us!

[Aaron]

Do you mean this quote?

"Questioner: Is there any particular race of people on our planet now who were incarnated here from second density?

Ra: I am Ra. There are no second-density consciousness complexes here on your sphere at this time. However, there are two races which use the second-density form. One is the entities from the planetary sphere you call Maldek. These entities are working their understanding complexes through a series of what you would call karmic restitutions. They dwell within your deeper underground passageways and are known to you as “Bigfoot.”"

When I search for phrases and click "show question numbers", nothing happens. So I don't know what session that's from... haha! Although from memory, it's probably the first book, within the first 10 sessions. (Woohoo!! Edited! Thanks, βαθμιαίος. It's session 9, question 17. Also, your post in the other thread is illuminating! Thank you.)

Reading this carefully, I come to the conclusion that you're probably interpreting the passage differently than me. The questioner asks if there is any specific race of human at this time that came from second density. Ra says no, and uses the words "consciousness complex", which to me could mean "second density entity group soul which is sufficiently evolved enough to almost be ready to jump into a third density body".

Hence I think Ra is saying there's no race of human right now who's soul used to be incarnate in second density life. To me, that makes more sense, but still not complete sense, because all third density life had to come from some form of second density life. Maybe the question should have been "Is there any particular race of people on our planet now who were incarnated here from second density lifeforms on this planet?"

Ra then goes on to say that Bigfoot uses "the second density form". Maybe the second density "consciousness complex" of a Bigfoot, for example, is almost evolved enough to jump into third density?

[βαθμιαίος]

I posted my interpretation of that quote in the miniature golf thread.

---

When I search for phrases and click "show question numbers", nothing happens.

It's working again now.

[βαθμιαίος]

Per Dewey Larson, a fundamental tenet of RST is that the universe is Euclidean. Now a truly Euclidean (or flat) Universe would never coalesce due to its own gravity (this requires a closed universe based upon an elliptical geometry).

Two questions about this. What do you mean when you say that a Euclidean universe is flat? And why does coalescing due to its own gravity require elliptical geometry? Ra said that Dewey Larson didn't understand gravity. I wonder if that might be relevant here.

It is interesting to note, that the amount of matter/energy known is amazingly close to the amount necessary to make a flat universe. After that the simple addition or subtraction of a single atom is all that is needed to make it elliptical or hyperbolic.

Whoah! How does that work, exactly? Can you elaborate on this at all?

It is also possible that this may be resolved by whatever theory eventually explains why inflation (i.e., movement faster than the speed of light) happened in the very early universe, but I can't say.

For what it's worth, Dewey Larson himself did not accept the Big Bang theory, and he scoffed at many of what he considered "imaginative" attempts by theorists to get themselves out of sticky situations that their fundamental misunderstanding of time, space, and motion had gotten them into. I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that inflation might be one of those imaginative attempts.

[Questioner]

I posted my interpretation of that quote in the miniature golf thread.

Would you mind moving that here or doing a cut&paste? It was just an aside there and it's directly to the point here.

[3D Sunset]

Two questions about this. What do you mean when you say that a Euclidean universe is flat? And why does coalescing due to its own gravity require elliptical geometry?

It is interesting to note, that the amount of matter/energy known is amazingly close to the amount necessary to make a flat universe. After that the simple addition or subtraction of a single atom is all that is needed to make it elliptical or hyperbolic.

Whoah! How does that work, exactly? Can you elaborate on this at all?

Both of these questions are related, so let me try to address them together. It is an interesting fact that Euclidean vs non-Euclidean geometries result in open, closed, or flat universes, but it is true. Before the 19th Century, when Lobachevsky and Bolyai independently discovered non-Euclidean geometries which are based upon curved, rather than flat surfaces, the only geometry that anyone knew was Eucledian, or flat, in which parallel lines stay a constant distance apart, and the angles of a triangle always add up to 180 degrees. In a spherical (aka elliptical) universe, the angles of a triangle add up to slightly more than 180 degrees and parallel lines meet eventually before infinity. In a hyperbolic universe, the angles of a triangle add up to slightly less than 180 degrees and parallel lines diverge prior to infinity.

Einstein used these geometries to mathematically represent his relative universe with curved space/time, and afterward, his concept of a closed, spherical universe, was generally accepted until they started trying to find all the matter that was necessary to close it. Up to now, there is still matter "missing" that would be required to close the universe, so it is generally accepted as being based on a hyperbolic geometry. It is interesting to note though, that several methods for measuring the flatness of the universe that are independent of the amount of matter indicate that it is so close to flat, that we can't currently tell if it is flat or ever so slightly curved.

Thus, for Dewey's tenet of geometries being Euclidean to be correct, the universe would have to be exactly flat, which means that the fate of the universe would be for it to expand forever at an ever decreasing rate. In this case, the universe is open and not closed, so there is no Big Crunch. I think, however, that the inclusion of a non-Euclidean geometry on RST, would complicate his simple, straightforward (he wrote, tongue-in-cheek) math enormously. Thus, my conflict between the aesthetic beauty of RST and the aesthetic beauty of my intuitive view of cosmology.

To finish the thought for the fate of non-Euclidean universes: A spherical universe is closed and would eventually coalesce. And a hyperbolic universe is open and would expand forever at an ever increasing rate.

By the way, the flatness of the universe has also been referred to as "The Omega Factor" (where Omega refers to the density factor of the universe). If Omega = 1, then there is exactly the right amount of matter to make the universe flat, if Omega >1 then the universe is closed and spherical, if Omega <1 then the universe is open and hyperbolic.

Ra said that Dewey Larson didn't understand gravity. I wonder if that might be relevant here.

Is this the quote that you're referring to? I always saw that as Ra scolding Don a little and reminding him not to overlook the spiritual aspects of physical phenomena.

Questioner: Then because of these rotations there is an inward motion of these particles which is opposite the direction of space/time progression as I understand it, and this inward progression then is seen by us as what we call gravity. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect.

Questioner: Can you tell me how the gravity comes about?

Ra: I am Ra. This that you speak of as gravity may be seen as the pressing towards the inner light/love, the seeking towards the spiral line of light which progresses towards the Creator. This is a manifestation of a spiritual event or condition of livingness.

This sounds much more like the metaphysical definition of gravity, rather than the physical. That said, I'm not really sure why Ra said that Dewey's definition of gravity was incorrect, but I couldn't glean anything tangible from his description, so I settled on the above interpretation.

For what it's worth, Dewey Larson himself did not accept the Big Bang theory, and he scoffed at many of what he considered "imaginative" attempts by theorists to get themselves out of sticky situations that their fundamental misunderstanding of time, space, and motion had gotten them into. I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that inflation might be one of those imaginative attempts.

Note that Dewey's concept of a universe of motion ever expanding at unit speed is actually similar to the Big Bang concept. The primary difference (as I see it, and note that this is my interpretation, not Dewey's) being that in the Big Bang, all matter and energy are formed simultaneously at a singularity, whereas Dewey would have matter and energy generated whenever and wherever it is needed in order to keep the universe flat as space expands out over time. This resolves several issues with current cosmological theory, such as the need for inflation and would also explain why there is exactly enough matter available for the universe to be flat. My only problem with it is that it still conflicts with my intuitive concept of a closed universe.

Ultimately, I feel that I will need to abandon one or the other, I'm just not sure which it will be yet. In the mean time, I continue to gather data and refine my understanding of all the theories.

I hope that helps,

3D Sunset

[βαθμιαίος]

Would you mind moving that here or doing a cut&paste? It was just an aside there and it's directly to the point here.

Since the discussion has proceeded over there, I'll just post a link: http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...5#pid18465

---

Is this the quote that you're referring to?

3D, I will reply more fully later, but here's the quote I was thinking of.

20.7 Questioner: Is the physics of Dewey Larson correct?

Ra: I am Ra. The physics of sound vibrational complex, Dewey, is a correct system as far as it is able to go. There are those things which are not included in this system. However, those coming after this particular entity, using the basic concepts of vibration and the study of vibrational distortions, will begin to understand that which you know as gravity and those things you consider as “n” dimensions. These things are necessary to be included in a more universal, shall we say, physical theory.

[3D Sunset]

3D, I will reply more fully later, but here's the quote I was thinking of.

20.7 Questioner: Is the physics of Dewey Larson correct?

Ra: I am Ra. The physics of sound vibrational complex, Dewey, is a correct system as far as it is able to go. There are those things which are not included in this system. However, those coming after this particular entity, using the basic concepts of vibration and the study of vibrational distortions, will begin to understand that which you know as gravity and those things you consider as “n” dimensions. These things are necessary to be included in a more universal, shall we say, physical theory.

Ah! Isn't it funny how certain lines are lost to the memory. I have always used this quote as reason for further exploring RST in the hopes of seeing where else it may be able to go. Interestingly, I hadn't really thought about looking at RST with respect to gravity and "n" dimensions until you pointed it out.

Okay, so in answer to you earlier question, I would say yes, perhaps this is applicable to the question of RST vis-a-vis a flat, open or closed universe. I also find it interesting that Ra brings up our old friend "n" dimensions here as well. This might be a good time to bring up something I've avoided up to now. Given that clearly there is existence outside of our known universe (aka space and time), it logically can be concluded that there are more dimensions than the three of space and three of time. In Dewey's later works, (written after the Ra contact, by the way), such as his most metaphysical work: "Beyond Space and Time", Dewey was examining this need and actually did conclude that there has to be something more than the s/t t/s based universe.

3D Sunset

[Questioner]

This might be a good time to bring up something I've avoided up to now.... Dewey's later works...

I had not heard of Dewey Larson before reading the Ra books. I looked up a little bit of information about him, but I am not really familiar with the progress of his career. If you've been avoiding discussion of these topics, let me give you a full invitation to speak your mind about them. It's a good opportunity for others to learn from what you have explored, researched, pondered and meditated upon.

[3D Sunset]

I had not heard of Dewey Larson before reading the Ra books. I looked up a little bit of information about him, but I am not really familiar with the progress of his career. If you've been avoiding discussion of these topics, let me give you a full invitation to speak your mind about them. It's a good opportunity for others to learn from what you have explored, researched, pondered and meditated upon.

Hi Questioner,

I would again encourage you and anyone else that is interested to visit the Dewey B. Larson and RST thread on the Science & Technology Forum. It has a fairly involved dialog about many of these topics. Although I have not posted to it for some time, it does contain a lot of background and some of my thoughts and insights, meager as they are.

If it happens to strike anyone's fancy, then I would prefer to continue Dewey Larson and RST discussions on that thread.

Love and Light

3D Sunset

[βαθμιαίος]

3D Sunset, thank you for that lucid explication of flat, open, and closed universes.

I think that the concept of metaphysical gravity might help resolve your paradox, in that as the preponderance of entities in an octave approach 7th density, their metaphysical gravity might become physical and pull the universe back into a big crunch. As Ra puts it, "[t]he intelligence or consciousness of foci have reached a state where their, shall we say, spiritual nature or mass calls them inward, inward, inward until all is coalesced."

[Lavazza]

As Ra puts it, "[t]he intelligence or consciousness of foci have reached a state where their, shall we say, spiritual nature or mass calls them inward, inward, inward until all is coalesced."

This may at least help us understand what Black Holes are?

[βαθμιαίος]

This may at least help us understand what Black Holes are?

Yes, I think so.

29.18 ...when all of creation in its infinity has reached a spiritual gravitational mass of sufficient nature, the entire creation infinitely coalesces; the light seeking and finding its source and thusly ending the creation and beginning a new creation much as you consider the black hole, as you call it, with its conditions of infinitely great mass at the zero point from which no light may be seen as it has been absorbed.

29.19 Questioner: Then the black hole would be a point at which the environmental material has succeeded in uniting with unity or with the Creator? Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. The black hole which manifests third density is the physical complex manifestation of this spiritual or metaphysical state. This is correct.

[Lavazza]

Yes, I think so.

29.18 ...when all of creation in its infinity has reached a spiritual gravitational mass of sufficient nature, the entire creation infinitely coalesces; the light seeking and finding its source and thusly ending the creation and beginning a new creation much as you consider the black hole, as you call it, with its conditions of infinitely great mass at the zero point from which no light may be seen as it has been absorbed.

29.19 Questioner: Then the black hole would be a point at which the environmental material has succeeded in uniting with unity or with the Creator? Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. The black hole which manifests third density is the physical complex manifestation of this spiritual or metaphysical state. This is correct.

Yet another passage I have forgotten or looked over in my first read through the books... Very cool. It sounds very much like Ra is describing what Stephen Hawking calls 'The Big Crunch'. I think we have discussed this earlier in another thread. I think physics is moving away from this theory now that the universe is more and more being considered 'open' in nature. Of course this is just what is 'current' now.

On another point through, and more true to the nature of the thread, I'd like to bold a line of text from the quote you just supplied.

Ra: I am Ra. The black hole which manifests third density is the physical complex manifestation of this spiritual or metaphysical state. This is correct.

[/quote]

So if we've established that all densities are existing in the same universe at the same time, what could Ra mean by this? I suppose it's intended to mean what third density can observe, but it really sounds more like they're talking about different space/times. Very confusing.

Lavazza

[βαθμιαίος]

So if we've established that all densities are existing in the same universe at the same time, what could Ra mean by this? I suppose it's intended to mean what third density can observe, but it really sounds more like they're talking about different space/times. Very confusing.

Not sure, but I think it just implies that the same event would look different from a fourth-, fifth-, or other density perspective.

[3D Sunset]

So if we've established that all densities are existing in the same universe at the same time, what could Ra mean by this? I suppose it's intended to mean what third density can observe, but it really sounds more like they're talking about different space/times. Very confusing.

Not sure, but I think it just implies that the same event would look different from a fourth-, fifth-, or other density perspective.

I agree.

3D Sunset

[Plenum]

ALL THE DENSITIES COEXIST

THERE IS ONLY ONE UNIVERSE ULTIMATELY

there are 4th,5th,6th densities beings/things/objects/entities all around us.