Density/Dimension clarification

[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