Greetings Sisters and Brothers,
I'm seeking to clarify the duration in terms of Earth years of the Densities.
3rd Density = 75,000
4th Density = 30 million years
5th Density = 50 million years ( EDIT: I've added this as this is apparently 5th's duration )
6th Density = 75 million years.
Does anyone know if is it stated anywhere in the Ra or Q'uo material how long 5th Density is?
Thank you in anticipation of your assistance!
Love and Light to all
Jim
(04-26-2013, 08:41 AM)Jim Kent + Wrote: [ -> ]Greetings Sisters and Brothers,
I'm seeking to clarify the duration in terms of Earth years of the Densities.
3rd Density = 75,000
4th Density = 30 million years
5th Density = ?
6th Density = 75 million years.
Does anyone know if is it stated anywhere in the Ra or Q'uo material how long 5th Density is?
Thank you in anticipation of your assistance!
Love and Light to all
Jim
I guess it must between 30 million and 75 million years.
5th density is at least 1 billion years for STS which evolves faster
(04-29-2013, 11:05 AM)bosphorus Wrote: [ -> ]5th density is at least 1 billion years for STS which evolves faster
Wow, then Ra must be a very old entity.
One thing that's been buggering me is the fact that Ra at one point gives the percentages of planets of the different densities. According to them third density, which is the shortest by far, has the highest percentage. How can this be? Are many planets spinning third density cycles over and over and over again? Even if the two highest densities are skewing the statistics third is still more common than first and second.
Quote:Questioner: Can you tell me what percentage of those are third, fourth, fifth, sixth density, et cetera? Roughly, very roughly.
Ra: I am Ra. A percentage seventeen for first density, a percentage twenty for second density, a percentage twenty-seven for third density, a percentage sixteen for fourth density, a percentage six for fifth density. The other information must be withheld. The free will of your future is not making this available. We shall speak on one item. There is a fairly large percentage, approximately thirty-five percent of the intelligent planets, which do not fit in the percentiles. These mysteries are of sixth and seventh density and are not available for our speaking.
(04-29-2013, 03:07 PM)1109 Wrote: [ -> ]One thing that's been buggering me is the fact that Ra at one point gives the percentages of planets of the different densities. According to them third density, which is the shortest by far, has the highest percentage. How can this be? Are many planets spinning third density cycles over and over and over again? Even if the two highest densities are skewing the statistics third is still more common than first and second.
[/quote]
1109, I don't mean to mock dear brother, and I'm sure that your English is vastly superior to my Swedish, but I think that you meant to say, "bugging" me...
Buggering has a completely different meaning!
L & L
Jim
I am also quite sure of that as an outsider to the whole debate Mr Kent.
(04-29-2013, 11:05 AM)bosphorus Wrote: [ -> ]5th density is at least 1 billion years for STS which evolves faster
Are you sure about STS evolving faster? Pretty sure they evolve CONSIDERABLY slower, especially in those higher densities.
I think they evolve harder (higher rate of dying or failing to evolve at all) but that those that do evolve, evolve much faster than STO of same degree. STO object is to slow down evolution to the lowest accetable common base due to desire to preserve all life so logically STS would evolve faster in 5th D. But thats just my theory.
(04-29-2013, 03:07 PM)1109 Wrote: [ -> ]One thing that's been buggering me is the fact that Ra at one point gives the percentages of planets of the different densities. According to them third density, which is the shortest by far, has the highest percentage. How can this be? Are many planets spinning third density cycles over and over and over again? Even if the two highest densities are skewing the statistics third is still more common than first and second.
Quote:Questioner: Can you tell me what percentage of those are third, fourth, fifth, sixth density, et cetera? Roughly, very roughly.
Ra: I am Ra. A percentage seventeen for first density, a percentage twenty for second density, a percentage twenty-seven for third density, a percentage sixteen for fourth density, a percentage six for fifth density. The other information must be withheld. The free will of your future is not making this available. We shall speak on one item. There is a fairly large percentage, approximately thirty-five percent of the intelligent planets, which do not fit in the percentiles. These mysteries are of sixth and seventh density and are not available for our speaking.
Yeah, that quote's a little odd. Maybe it was garbled? 17% + 20% + 27% + 16% + 6% + 35% = 121% (?)
(04-29-2013, 03:07 PM)1109 Wrote: [ -> ]One thing that's been buggering me is the fact that Ra at one point gives the percentages of planets of the different densities. According to them third density, which is the shortest by far, has the highest percentage. How can this be? Are many planets spinning third density cycles over and over and over again? Even if the two highest densities are skewing the statistics third is still more common than first and second.
I think the idea is that 3D has more of a dependency on planets to evolve whereas 1D, and 2D do not...
(04-29-2013, 04:58 PM)Not Sure Wrote: [ -> ]I think they evolve harder (higher rate of dying or failing to evolve at all) but that those that do evolve, evolve much faster than STO of same degree. STO object is to slow down evolution to the lowest accetable common base due to desire to preserve all life so logically STS would evolve faster in 5th D. But thats just my theory.
I don't have any knowledge or belief one way or the other, but based on the negative system of hierarchical power those at the top benefit with respect to those at the bottom in terms of greater polarization. Perhaps this corresponds to the notion you suggested that more sts evolve slowly or not at all, but for those at the top of the pyramid progression in the density is faster.
Once again, I'm not even positing that I agree with the notion, but I just felt that there was some logical consistency with what you were saying and the inherent winners and losers scheme built into sts societies.
Ra said they experienced 3rd density on Venus 2600 million years ago. So how does that factor.
(04-29-2013, 10:49 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Ra said they experienced 3rd density on Venus 2600 million years ago. So how does that factor.
Because of the ability in 4th dimensional space/time to travel in time?
Ra always mentioned their difficulty in calculating using earth years.
The natural progression through the densities would appear to take a near eternity whereby intelligent beings are able to speed up this process due to their abilities to time travel.
(04-30-2013, 02:18 AM)Ashim Wrote: [ -> ] (04-29-2013, 10:49 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Ra said they experienced 3rd density on Venus 2600 million years ago. So how does that factor.
Because of the ability in 4th dimensional space/time to travel in time?
Factor with respect to the premise of the OP.
(04-30-2013, 09:39 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2013, 02:18 AM)Ashim Wrote: [ -> ] (04-29-2013, 10:49 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Ra said they experienced 3rd density on Venus 2600 million years ago. So how does that factor.
Because of the ability in 4th dimensional space/time to travel in time?
Factor with respect to the premise of the OP.
Linear time simply does not exist outside of 3rd density, thus years can only be expressed in relation to 3d?
Time just becomes another 'location' in the landscape of cosmic geometry?
Quote:Ra: I am Ra. The calculations necessary for establishing this point are difficult since so much of what you call time is taken up before and after third density as you see the progress of time from your vantage point. We may say in general that the time of our enjoyment of the choice-making was approximately 2.6 million of your sun-years in your past. However— we correct this instrument. Your term is billion, 2.6 billion of your years in your past. However, this time, as you call it, is not meaningful for our intervening space/time has been experienced in a manner quite unlike your third-density experience of space/time.
But we're talking about linear time - that's why I said in keeping with the premise of the OP.
Ra confirms the scale with the objective measurement of orbits. It also stands to reason that
2.6 billion years ago could allow for sufficient changes to have 2D/3D life on Venus. The other
times provided also use the same measurement.