11-09-2012, 06:45 PM
(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?