Does anyone else feel a little skeptical when Ra gave figures and percentages in regards to some of Don's questions. For example:
Quote:16.25 Questioner: How many inhabited planets are there in our galaxy?
Ra: I am Ra. We are assuming that you intend all dimensions of consciousness or densities of awareness in this question. Approximately one-fifth of all planetary entities contain awareness of one or more densities. Some planetary spheres are hospitable only for certain densities. Your planetary sphere, for instance, is at this time hospitable to levels or densities one, two, three, and four.
Going by this, if there are hundreds of billions of planets in our galaxy, then one fifth of that would still equate to billions of planets being inhabited, no? But Ra says that there are only 67 million inhabited planets.
Quote:16.26 Questioner: Well, roughly how many total planets in this galaxy of stars that we’re in have aware life regardless of density?
Ra: I am Ra. Approximately six seven, oh oh oh, oh oh oh [67,000,000].
Am I missing something? Or are Ra's calculations out of whack?
Perhaps Ra was talking about this sector of the galaxy.
Quote:Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. Please continue to scan for errors having to do with numberings, as you call them, as this concept is foreign to us and we must translate, if you will, when using numbers. This is an ongoing weakness of this contact due to the difference between our ways and yours. Your aid is appreciated.
(09-06-2014, 09:08 AM)Jade Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. Please continue to scan for errors having to do with numberings, as you call them, as this concept is foreign to us and we must translate, if you will, when using numbers. This is an ongoing weakness of this contact due to the difference between our ways and yours. Your aid is appreciated.
I imagine this then would apply to all the figures which Ra provided. Seems a little strange that such an advanced being would have problems with human math. Ahh well.
Notice how Ra is speaking symbolically..ongoing weakness due to difference between our ways and yours.
When you see Ra fumbling their words on things in the material, it's because the group's seeking was distorting Ra's broadcast. Think of the group as a receptor with Ra functioning as a symbol of intelligent infinity, broadcasting its signal silently. We're all channels of intelligent infinity/energy, and as we tune in and focus our seeking, we can begin to pick up certain signals and interact on new levels, which is what the group did.
"I have not spoken through this instrument before. We had to wait until she was precisely tuned, as we send a narrow-band vibration."
"Other than this, we can only repeat the request to carefully align the symbols used to facilitate this instrument’s balance. Our contact is narrow-banded and thus the influx brought in with us must be precise."
Aha Who needs math when you have love?
"Therefore, forget you the counting."
"To count the numbers is without virtue."
Again, all metaphor.
(09-06-2014, 09:26 AM)Unbound Wrote: [ -> ]Aha Who needs math when you have love?
Haha indeed. It's just that things like this have made me question the material at times. I still struggle sometimes with the idea that this may all just be one big delusion. What about the maths of love? That was a bad joke btw.
(09-06-2014, 09:31 AM)Icaro Wrote: [ -> ]"Therefore, forget you the counting."
"To count the numbers is without virtue."
Again, all metaphor.
Perhaps, but I couldn't help but notice the inconsistencies in the figures. But what you said about the groups seeking makes sense. It makes me wonder about how much was miscommunicated/mistranslated as a result of some imperfection or distortion. Cool beans.
Yeah I wasn't referring to you Folk-love lol. It does make you wonder.
Here's the rest of one those quotes..I believe there is hidden advice between the words if you catch my drift.
"It is the Confederation’s desire to serve those who may indeed seek more intensely because of this added catalyst. We do not choose to attempt to project the success of added numbers to the harvest for this would not be appropriate. We are servants. If we are called, we shall serve with all our strength. To count the numbers is without virtue."
Later, Don estimates, based on some further answers from Ra, that 3% of stars have inhabited planets:
Quote:71.9 Questioner: Are the processes that we are talking about processes that occur on many planets in our Milky Way Galaxy, or do they occur on all planets, or what percentage?
Ra: I am Ra. These processes occur upon all planets which have given birth to sub-Logoi such as yourselves. The percentage of inhabited planets is approximately 10%.
71.10 Questioner: What percentage of stars, roughly, have planetary systems?
Ra: I am Ra. This is unimportant information, but harmless. Approximately 32% of stars have planets as you know them while another 6% have some sort of clustering material which upon some densities might be inhabitable.
71.11 Questioner: Well, this would tell me that roughly 3% of all stars have inhabited planets, which would just give a, shall I say, mind-boggling idea of the number of entities which… I assume then this process of evolution is in use throughout the known universe. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This octave of infinite knowledge of the One Creator is as it is throughout the One Infinite Creation, with variations programmed by sub-Logoi of what you call major galaxies and minor galaxies. These variations are not significant but may be compared to various regions of geographical location sporting various ways of pronouncing the same sound vibration complex or concept.
The current estimate for the number of stars in our galaxy is 300 billion, which would mean approximately 9 billion inhabited planets. So I agree with you -- either the 300 billion estimate, or the 3% factor, or Ra's number of 67 million has to be wrong.
Who created the billions of planets estimate and how?
(09-06-2014, 10:42 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Who created the billions of planets estimate and how?
I just did a quick google search to be honest. Come to think of it, Ra may have meant 67 billion. That fits much better. Its probably also worth noting that there is obviously more than one planet per star. If there are say 100 billion stars, and we say on average that there are 3 planets per star, that would mean 300 billion planets. One fifth of that is 60 billion. So maybe Ra did mean a billion rather than a million. Who knows.
Wait, wait... So suddenly the first estimate on Google based on the latest bleeding edge interpretation of planetary radiation, which could be very fallible, is a large contender of information here?
Especially when we believe in undiscovered metaphysical systems presented by Ra?
(09-06-2014, 11:22 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Wait, wait... So suddenly the first estimate on Google based on the latest bleeding edge interpretation of planetary radiation, which could be very fallible, is a large contender of information here?
Especially when we believe in undiscovered metaphysical systems presented by Ra?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/milky-way5.htm
I don't see how metaphysical systems would change the number of planets in the galaxy. I honestly do not know. Come to think of it, I don't really know anything. Yippee.
There's also this:
Quote:7.4 Questioner: [Inaudible] use an example. If ten, only ten, entities on earth required your services how would you compute their call using this square rule?
Ra: We would square one ten sequential times, raising the number to the tenth square.
7.5 Questioner: What would be the result of this calculation?
Ra: [24-second pause] The result is difficult to transmit. It is one thousand and twelve [1,012], approximately. The entities who call are sometimes not totally unified in their calling and, thus, the squaring is slightly less. Thus, there is a statistical loss over a period of call. However, perhaps you may see by this statistically corrected information the squaring mechanism.
Ra has a difficult time transmitting this calculation, yet they are able to give other much larger and seemingly more difficult calculations without such a pause. Not looking good for Ra at all. Haha. These are just some of the inconsistencies I've picked up on. Good day folks.
Quo has said on multiple occasions (perhaps someone will dig up a quote) that our brain is a biological computer that is more powerful than what we have on the other side, and that much of the mental calisthenics we perform on a daily basis are part of the illusion and unimportant.
This universe which we view as a mechanism is actually a work of art, created organically, maintained by consciousness rather than mechanism. Perhaps from a more advanced, wholistic perspective numbers become unimportant and unnecessary. Even our own right brain hemisphere doesn't get them.
In terms of the validity of the material, Folk-Love, all that matters is what happens when you apply it to your own life. By their fruits you will know them, said Jesus, and the Buddha made the same point about putting every claim through the field-test of your own experience.
The equation in the article gives no accounting for the potential of nuances in gravity and mass that apply at a galactic scale. Physics is theorized by Ra and modern science to differ depending on location in the universe.
Nobody has actually counted the planets yet. We have an estimate.
(09-06-2014, 11:37 AM)Stranger Wrote: [ -> ]Quo has said on multiple occasions (perhaps someone will dig up a quote) that our brain is a biological computer that is more powerful than what we have on the other side, and that much of the mental calisthenics we perform on a daily basis are part of the illusion and unimportant.
This universe which we view as a mechanism is actually a work of art, created organically, maintained by consciousness rather than mechanism. Perhaps from a more advanced, wholistic perspective numbers become unimportant and unnecessary. Even our own right brain hemisphere doesn't get them.
In terms of the validity of the material, Folk-Love, all that matters is what happens when you apply it to your own life. By their fruits you will know them, said Jesus, and the Buddha made the same point about putting every claim through the field-test of your own experience.
I was mostly joking around but was also curious as to why an advanced being would make mathematical mistakes. I like what you said about our brains being a computer which is quite unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Looking at the universe as a work of art as you mention is rather beautiful and is an idea I agree with.
(09-06-2014, 11:49 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]The equation in the article gives no accounting for the potential of nuances in gravity and mass that apply at a galactic scale. Physics is theorized by Ra and modern science to differ depending on location in the universe.
Nobody has actually counted the planets yet. We have an estimate.
Yeah I guess your right.
I am not taking sides but please: are we going to worship this current number as fact when it is a wild guess by some standards?
(09-06-2014, 11:51 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]I am not taking sides but please: are we going to worship this current number as fact when it is a wild guess by some standards?
Im not well versed in the field of science so I couldn't tell you how accurate such estimates are. I guess it's just that I have this mistaken view of higher dimensional beings as Gods who are infallible and know pretty much everything. The idea that they don't know things make me feel uneasy for some reason. I suppose I take comfort in such ideas.
Ra, gods?! Haha, they are just a bunch of old farts playing at community service.
Folk-love, I would say they know everything that matters.
(09-06-2014, 12:44 PM)Stranger Wrote: [ -> ]...everything that matters.
Love and a little bit of light.
I make simple mathematical mistakes all the time. Arthimetic is my nemesis. Simple numbers mess me up.
Calculus and discrete math are cake though.
Honestly, there was a time when this inconsistency would have bothered me. But now that I truly believe the message behind the material, the exact numbers are unimportant.
Let's say for the sake of argument the minimum would be 67 million planets. The only comparison I can make to inhabited planets would be the nation-states of Earth. I can barely phathom the 200ish countries this world has, let alone more than 67 million or more this galaxy has. So in my mind the number becomes simply "there's a whole bunch of inhabited planets."