Session 11.
"There is a sphere in the area opposite your sun of a very, very cold nature, but large enough to skew certain statistical figures. This sphere should not properly be called a planet as it is locked in first density."
Anybody have any idea what this means? Could it be a "planetary body" composed of "dark matter" (from our perspective)?
I am thinking it means there is a body there that is not observable by our current instruments, but it could be observed if we had more advanced technology.
how is first density not observable? aren't we able to observe all three densities? how is it large enough to skew something? i don't understand that. is the mass or width or height or longitude of the orb in question somehow incapable of being that cold? diamonds are cold because they are dense... so how is a first density thing cold anyway? wait what? the sun is not cold... is the sun dense? what kind of dense?
Ra didn't say it wasn't observable though.
could it be a mirror to the sun?
i mean a mirror meaning opposite... like you said dark matter? is dark matter antimatter... i'm totally drunk
It feels to me that this has to do with the hollow universe model and witnessin the sun as a burnt portal out of our "hollow universe". And referring to having a "if you look at the sun, you'll see the opposite universe just as much as if you look at a black hole" type deal. That its kind of opposite to our 6th D "self earth" as viewed through the sun, not around the sun. (make sense i hope. Its a theory i've been workin gon)
I came in here to see what a "shere" was.
(11-07-2012, 07:20 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]I came in here to see what a "shere" was.
Did you leave disappointed?
(11-07-2012, 07:20 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]I came in here to see what a "shere" was.
Thanks
(11-07-2012, 03:46 PM)caycegal Wrote: [ -> ]Session 11.
"There is a sphere in the area opposite your sun of a very, very cold nature, but large enough to skew certain statistical figures. This sphere should not properly be called a planet as it is locked in first density."
Anybody have any idea what this means? Could it be a "planetary body" composed of "dark matter" (from our perspective)?
I am thinking it means there is a body there that is not observable by our current instruments, but it could be observed if we had more advanced technology.
I think it's our binary star companion.
Quote:In November 2010, the scientific journal Icarus published a paper by astrophysicists John Matese and Daniel Whitmire, who proposed the existence of a binary companion to our sun, larger than Jupiter, in the long-hypothesized "Oort cloud" -- a faraway repository of small icy bodies at the edge of our solar system. The researchers use the name "Tyche" for the hypothetical planet. Their paper argues that evidence for the planet would have been recorded by the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE)...
(11-07-2012, 04:18 PM)Oceania Wrote: [ -> ]how is first density not observable? aren't we able to observe all three densities?
We can not observe time/space in 1D. And we cannot observe 2D or 3D at all.
I think Don was referring to "Nemesis".
Ra didn't say it was in time/space
(11-08-2012, 06:13 AM)Oceania Wrote: [ -> ]Ra didn't say it was in time/space
Ra doesn't say a lot of things. What do you infer? The simple answer to the OP is that the body is too dark, too small, and/or not sufficiently massive to directly detect with our tech (i.e. telescopes). The compactness of extremely dense objects is due to motion in time/space (i.e. supernova remnant moving at greater than unit speed), according to Larson.
well i haven't read larson! gimme some time! sheesh!
I think it means that there is a small planetoid (think Pluto sized) in this solar system somewhere directly opposite our sun. It's cold because it's so far away from the sun. We can't see it because it's either too small, doesn't reflect enough light, or because the sun itself is blocking it from our view.
By large enough to skew certain statistical figures, I can only think that they must be speaking of its gravitic effects on the orbits of other planets, or possibly pulling on probes we've sent that way, or bending the light in the telescopes' views that are attempting to look close to that part of the galaxy.
However, there are people who speak of a massive physical spaceship the size of a small planet that is "hiding" on the other side of our sun, and it being the home base of those who manipulate this planet. I suppose that Ra might possibly give a hint towards this when they say "locked" in first density. Since planets have molten cores, the phrase "of a very, very cold nature" could have some significance as well.
Hi all, new to the forum but an avid reader of the LOO series for a couple of years now.
The way I interperate this is as follows.
First, a quote from Ra:
Quote:Questioner: Is there any physical difference between first and second density? For instance if I could see both a first and second-density planet side by side, in my present condition, could I see both of them? Would they both be physical to me?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. All of the octave of your densities would be clearly visible were not the fourth through the seventh freely choosing not to be visible.
Therefore it must be visible to us in third density.
This begs the question why haven't our astronomers/probes discovered it? the fact that we haven't and that Ra describes it as cold leads me to believe that it has an orbit far out of our visible range.
Perhaps even, Ra was referring to what our astronomers now know as dwarf planet
Eris:
Quote:Due to Eris's distant eccentric orbit, Eridian surface temperature is estimated to vary between about 30 and 56 kelvin (−243 and −217 degrees Celsius).
With such a long elliptical orbit and resulting low temperature Eris would not be habitable to 2nd and 3rd density and therefore it would make sense to lock it in 1st density.
Of course, it may be a different body entirely that we are yet to discover but either way it is probably extremely far out.
(11-09-2012, 03:50 PM)Mcik Wrote: [ -> ]Hi all, new to the forum but an avid reader of the LOO series for a couple of years now.
The way I interperate this is as follows.
First, a quote from Ra:
Quote:Questioner: Is there any physical difference between first and second density? For instance if I could see both a first and second-density planet side by side, in my present condition, could I see both of them? Would they both be physical to me?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. All of the octave of your densities would be clearly visible were not the fourth through the seventh freely choosing not to be visible.
Therefore it must be visible to us in third density.
This begs the question why haven't our astronomers/probes discovered it? the fact that we haven't and that Ra describes it as cold leads me to believe that it has an orbit far out of our visible range.
Perhaps even, Ra was referring to what our astronomers now know as dwarf planet Eris:
Quote:Due to Eris's distant eccentric orbit, Eridian surface temperature is estimated to vary between about 30 and 56 kelvin (−243 and −217 degrees Celsius).
With such a long elliptical orbit and resulting low temperature Eris would not be habitable to 2nd and 3rd density and therefore it would make sense to lock it in 1st density.
Of course, it may be a different body entirely that we are yet to discover but either way it is probably extremely far out.
I like your explanations. However, I still don't think I understand what "locked in 1st density" means. I understand you to be saying that it simply means uninhabitable by organic life. If so, why not simply phrase it that way?
There you go.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/11/...et-spotted
Quote:"'This object was discovered during a scan that covered the equivalent of 1,000 times the [area] of the full moon,' said study co-author Etienne Artigau of the University of Montreal. 'We observed hundreds of millions of stars and planets, but we only found one homeless planet in our neighborhood.' This planet appears to be an astonishingly young 50-120 million years old. The original paper is on the arXiv. Here's hoping the Mayan End-of-World-2012 people don't seize upon this as some kind of impending rogue planet on a collision course with Earth, but one can expect it'll be bantered about on such forums."
From the article: "The team believe it has a temperature of about 400C and a mass between four and seven times that of Jupiter - well short of the mass limit that would make it a likely brown dwarf."
enmaster!!! did you mean the inverse thing?
(11-17-2012, 03:10 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (11-15-2012, 06:56 PM)Patrick Wrote: [ -> ]There you go.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/11/...et-spotted
Not sure what you mean by "there you go". This particular object is about 130 light years away from the sun and it is closer to thousands of other stars.
My bad! I didn't see that. I thought they were talking about our local brown dwarf.