[Poowssnople]

it could possibly be just a way to describe the division among dimensions. kind of like there are many inches in a yard or many centimeters in a meter, there are many densities within one dimension as well. i think of dimensions as, and i am not sure if i am right about this, like radio frequencies. adjust the frequency a bit and you are in another reality and within that one radio frequency/dimension contains many variables such as bass and treble sounds which could be considered different densities.

feel free to tell me if you think i am way off on this.

[neonasafluni]

greywolf69,
good. we agree. just want to state that in no manner do i disagree with ideas from those who used 'multidimension' in past such as barbara marciniak. what other term could she use at the time? however, 'density' is better (or another) as the term 'dimension' is (as another stated) 'burdened' with wrong connotations in math.
foosnik,
yes, i disagree with you. go back to precise use of 'dimension' in mathematics. therein lies the error. 'ra's' work is preparing for another advance. (my opinion)
michael donovan

[arreskslarlig]

billybob said,

there is one misunderstanding that needs to be cleared up. we speak of the higher densities in a way that makes them seem more rarefied (after all we can't see them) than the grossly "dense" earthly abode where we can actually reach out and grab things. but in fact the higher densities are increasingly more dense, consisting of a type of ultra vibrating solidness far beyond one's imagination.

i have a hard time picturing this, since it seems that the greater the density, the more 'material' a thing is, and that this is why people doubt the spiritual reality - because they can't reach out and touch it. it stands to reason that spirit, which is all-pervasive, would be of the lightest density, elsewise, how could it penetrate everything? in the same a mist or gas is inhaled and absorbed by our body because of its low density. i have therefore assumed that our souls are of a light and fine density.

on the other hand, a book i have about the ether, which he calls the a-field (stands for akashic field) does say that the ether is a highly dense superfluid of some sort.

greywolf

but, i know what you are saying about higher densities being more dense ... negative energy seems to have a long wavelength as positive energy seems to have a shorter wavelength. (i hope im getting that right).

in order for us to be able to ascend, we would have to raise our vibrational frequency to be able to ascend.

here too, i have trouble. since i looked into brain wave stuff, it seems that the desirable ability to get into theta and delta brainwaves, the deep brainwaves, involve much longer wavelengths rather than shorter ones. it was proposed that a reason a guru can sometimes effect changes in people sitting nearby them is that their brain waves are very powerful, just as a tidal wave is powerful due to its depth, whereas little, choppy waves carry little power.

another spiritual author i respect says that positive thoughts and attitudes one person can outweigh and counterbalance the negativity of many. this would make sense in a waveform in which the positive is deep and long, and the negative, agitated and short and choppy.

we speak in terms of spiritual heights and ascension, which is rather natural as we look to lofty things with admiration and longing, but i think of spiritual advancement as one of acquiring depth, rather than height, since i have an image that the center of things is deep inside. i think this because while my reading on intelligent design and science in general, it appears that we live on the outer surface of several layers of smallness, and that the smallness is almost unimaginably small and yet it is the building blocks that makes up reality out here where we perceive.

[Muramoursuard]

ok, i am not sure if this has been posted before, so if it has, please direct me there and i will read. my question is this ...
what is the difference between density vs. dimension? are they the same thing, or are they something very different?

[Aceroassert]

greywolf wonders:

what is the difference between density vs. dimension? are they the same thing, or are they something very different? hi, gw

that is a perceptive question! please try this on for size: the two terms are often used as synonyms, yet "dimension" is burdened by some confusing baggage. when a person mentions an extra dimension it carries the idea that this dimension is off somewhere in a strange, twisted limbo of invisible space. in string theory the extra dimensions are imagined as some infitesimal microscopic realms not good for much of anything -- except as a helpful mathematical expediency. (i'm sorta reaching beyond my descriptive grasp here... )

the term, density, best describes the layered octave structure we think of as the 1st through the 7/8th. we are self-aware and conscious in the third density here on earth. but superimposed and intermixed -- so to speak -- in the same apparent space is found the whole complement of extra densities...(and some strange variations of 'time' complicate the situation beyond my primitive grasp of things)

(also, you might do a search on the book site here on divine cosmos for info concerning the physical vacuum ... also called the zero point field ... which i suspect is --or an aspect of -- what the ra calls intelligent infinity)

so, try to picture this: all is vibrating like mad...with different frequencies/waves interwoven. all is connected... any ripple we cause in our living is instaneously 'transmitted' rippling throughout the cosmos -- up, down, sideways, whatever -- its as if there is no spacial separation component whatsoever... have an idle thought, blow your nose ... and the whole cosmos is aware, and effectively modified by it. yep! i would conclude that our sense of privacy is apparently more apparent than real. ultimate cosmic sized embarrasment!

there is one misunderstanding that needs to be cleared up. we speak of the higher densities in a way that makes them seem more rarified (after all we can't see them) than the grossly "dense" earthly abode where we can actually reach out and grab things. but in fact the higher densities are increasingly more dense, consisting of a type of ultra vibrating solidness far beyond one's imagination.

wolf, re-reading what i've written makes me want to erase it and let someone more qualified step in to do a better job. hmmm nah. most likely they would screw it up also.

i'll leave it as is and invite the experts to fix it up and make it right.

my bestest, bbb (help! i've fallen up and can't get back down!)

[Muramoursuard]

thanks billybob,
what you are describing is what i (personally) was thinking as a dimension. i have read books on sacred geometry, so some sort of understanding on how life was created, but still mave much, much to learn. but i do understand what you are saying. so for me, it seems that density and dimension are the same thing. unless, as you say, someone who has extensive knowledge can make this a little more clear. but, i know what you are saying about higher densities being more dense ... negative energy seems to have a long wavelength as positive energy seems to have a shorter wavelength. (i hope im getting that right).

[HsSp82U8]

greywolf wonders:



hi, gw

that is a perceptive question! please try this on for size: the two terms are often used as synonyms, yet "dimension" is burdened by some confusing baggage. when a person mentions an extra dimension it carries the idea that this dimension is off somewhere in a strange, twisted limbo of invisible space. in string theory the extra dimensions are imagined as some infitesimal microscopic realms not good for much of anything -- except as a helpful mathematical expediency. (i'm sorta reaching beyond my descriptive grasp here... )

the term, density, best describes the layered octave structure we think of as the 1st through the 7/8th. we are self-aware and conscious in the third density here on earth. but superimposed and intermixed -- so to speak -- in the same apparent space is found the whole complement of extra densities...(and some strange variations of 'time' complicate the situation beyond my primitive grasp of things)

(also, you might do a search on the book site here on divine cosmos for info concerning the physical vacuum ... also called the zero point field ... which i suspect is --or an aspect of -- what the ra calls intelligent infinity)

so, try to picture this: all is vibrating like mad...with different frequencies/waves interwoven. all is connected... any ripple we cause in our living is instaneously 'transmitted' rippling throughout the cosmos -- up, down, sideways, whatever -- its as if there is no spacial separation component whatsoever... have an idle thought, blow your nose ... and the whole cosmos is aware, and effectively modified by it. yep! i would conclude that our sense of privacy is apparently more apparent than real. ultimate cosmic sized embarrasment!

there is one misunderstanding that needs to be cleared up. we speak of the higher densities in a way that makes them seem more rarified (after all we can't see them) than the grossly "dense" earthly abode where we can actually reach out and grab things. but in fact the higher densities are increasingly more dense, consisting of a type of ultra vibrating solidness far beyond one's imagination.

wolf, re-reading what i've written makes me want to erase it and let someone more qualified step in to do a better job. hmmm nah. most likely they would screw it up also.

i'll leave it as is and invite the experts to fix it up and make it right.

my bestest, bbb (help! i've fallen up and can't get back down!)

i think you expressed the way i see the comparison.

this video is a good visual
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vps2r...eature=related
and lets not forget the one posted earlier
on divine cosmos, before the nasa announcement in regards to sending
the beatles song "across the universe" being broadcast into outer space
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgwyk...eature=related

peace
papa t

[Muramoursuard]

ok, i was reading some of the ra material that talked about density and dimension, and i think i get it now. so if i am understanding it correctly, density has to do with the vibrational field, and dimension has to do with location as in a different time, so to speak.
the reason this is kind of confusing atm is because, before i ran into the term, density, i thought that we would ascend into the 4th dimension, and progress into the 5th, 6th, so forth and so on (depending on the being's spiritual awarness). of course, i did know a little about our octive and in order for us to be able to ascend, we would have to raise our vibrational frequency to be able to ascend. so if i am understanding this correct, as we ascend into the 4th dimension, our densities rise also, but depending on our octive we will be either 4th density poitive, or 4th density negative. is this correct, or am i still getting it wrong?

[Aceroassert]

greywolf ok, i was reading some of the ra material that talked about density and dimension, and i think i get it now. so if i am understanding it correctly, density has to do with the vibrational field, and dimension has to do with location as in a different time, so to speak. hi. here i'm trying to explain it and i'm confused myself: density is like the basic characteristics of a realm, a country ... the particular vibration field of a realm of thought. dimension have more to do with specifics, particular directional extant, space/times, time/spaces, (according to larsonian reciprocal physics there are three times, three spaces) ... ??!

yet many author's use the terms interchangably so you have to guess where they are coming from.


the reason this is kind of confusing atm is because, before i ran into the term, density, i thought that we would ascend into the 4th dimension, and progress into the 5th, 6th, so forth and so on (depending on the being's spiritual awarness). what you said originally is understandable. i do question the term "ascend" though; the idea would be true concerning going up the vibrational scale, but it might not apply to the idea of higher/lower dimension since those of 4th density could be co-inhabiting the planet.


of course, i did know a little about our octive and in order for us to be able to ascend, we would have to raise our vibrational frequency to be able to ascend. so if i am understanding this correct, as we ascend into the 4th dimension, our densities rise also, but depending on our octive we will be either 4th density poitive, or 4th density negative. is this correct, or am i still getting it wrong? as i understand it the densities in each "dimension" are descrete, even tho each octave level is separated in turn by a near infinity of stacked levels.. that i assume would have increasing vibrational frequency from first to last. to move from one octave level to the higher is like stepping over a threshold which maintain a certain level of resistance against crossing -- so it take some effort to go from 3rd to 4th, from 4th to 5th, etc.

and yes, the negative graduate would go to a 4th negative density. i have seen a discussion and illustration whereas the negative side is like being on a fireman's pole scaled downwards from the upper sleeping area, whereas the positive scale is located going up above the base level. how the 6th negative manages to switch over to the positive is a mystery to me.

yet negative high adepts can temporarily penetrate up to -- i think-- the eighth. they would have to pretty good pole climbers! i don't understand.

wolf, you might go to llresearch.org., and by using their search engine, see what q'uo or latwii have to say about it.

i really must apologize to you for muddying the waters even more.

billybobmuckerupper

[neonasafluni]

agree with (‘ra’) use of ‘density’ vs. ‘dimension’.
most of our math based on very arbitrary decisions in 1600s and early 1700s.
there is no such thing as one dimension or two. three dimensions could as well be measured in four directions as with points of tetrahedron. (for some uses this will come about anyway- another ‘cartesian’.) the ‘fourth dimension’ concept became popular with song out of late forties referring to einstein’s ‘fourth dimension’. those words had to come out of the song, as time goes by, for the movie as casablanca set just prior to operation torch, morocco, and prior to bombs. just google for original lyrics. adding ‘time’ to height, width and breadth is worse than three apples and an orange. it is three apples and an orange smoking a cigar and toting a machine gun.
i know what someone means when stating ‘other dimensions’ and do not feel at time that there was any better expression. i use ‘other realities’ and do not differentiate as to one being ‘higher’ or ‘lower’. ra for 'ra'.
michael

[Muramoursuard]

to michael donovan:
i see where you are coming from. i guess using "alternate reality" would be a little better ... maybe a little safer. = p

[Anteneprorid]

my understanding of density vs dimension.

dimensions: alternate time lines? parallel universes? magnetic resonances?

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

densities: levels of vibrational frequency or intensity of energy

_
_
_
_
_
_
_

[neonasafluni]

jpstephens2012 wrote (quote)
“…my understanding of density vs dimension.

dimensions: alternate time lines? parallel universes? magnetic resonances?

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

densities: levels of vibrational frequency or intensity of energy…” (unquote)

though i disagree i do understand where you are coming from. however, what you are referring to as ‘dimensions’ and ‘densities’ are in the same (we say 3-d) space. string theory is hitting a wall with this that will be overcome. problem is in the math theory itself. remember that even if (1-) ‘atoms were solid/physical and (2) the entire universe was made of lead ---- it would still be mostly empty (according to ‘standard’ physics).

if you alter emotional ‘sequence’ you can go from say day-to-day reality to a dream or the other way around. but all in the same ‘space’. we must even get around the ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ connotation of frequency/intensity. ‘different’ would be better. this is difficult.

nor do i in any manner disagree with wonderful ‘channelers’ such as [name] when she uses phrases such as “….we are multidimensional beings….” there was (in many cases still is) no better expression that would be popularly understood. but this is changing . even [name] has placed ‘codes’ in her books hinting at this. ‘ra’ is helping us ‘turn the corner’ to a more refined understanding of all this.

i am sensing that ‘onething’ (above) is deeply sensing the transformation of understanding when he wrote above:
(quote from ‘onething’) “…..but i think of spiritual advancement as one of acquiring depth, rather than height, since i have an image that the center of things is deep inside….” (unquote)

and ‘jpstephens2012’- the excellent manner in which you parsed things out shows that you will be one of the first to deeply understand ‘ra’s’ deepening of these issues. ‘language’ here is difficult. (lol) this issue is very very very difficult !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (and important)
wonderful discussion in all above posts.
michael donovan