Galaxies and Solar Systems

General discussion about the Elder Race, Life, the Universe and Everything.
Post Reply
User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Galaxies and Solar Systems

Post by Arcelius » Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:28 pm

The Ra Material 10.16 wrote:Ra: I am Ra. We use the term known to your people by the sound vibration complex “galaxy.” We accept that some galaxies contain one system of planetary and solar groups, others containing several. However, the importance of the locus in infinite time/space dimensionality is so little that we accept the distortion implicit in such an ambiguous term.
The Ra Material 16.35 wrote:Ra: I am Ra. I see the confusion. We have difficulty with your language.

The galaxy term must be split. We call galaxy that vibrational complex that is local. Thus, your sun is what we would call the center of a galaxy. We see you have another meaning for this term.
To Ra (and potentially others), there is little difference between a galaxy and a solar system. Our solar system (sun) has sub-logoi which are the planets. The planets also have sub-logoi which are people (in our case) or at least, they have the potential to have people of some kind. Thus, at least 3 levels of logoi in a hierarchy. A galaxy contains typically millions of stars (or star systems, star clusters, stuff, etc.) of which each star may have inhabited planets. This could be 4 levels of logoi. Ra does differentiate between stars, planets, and people but not really between stars and galaxies. Why?

I don't know why I've been thinking about that more recently. In computers, there is a security concept whereby I can grant you some access to something. Alternatively, I can also grant you the access to grant that access to others. People don't seem to be able to create their own sub-logoi. However, planets can though the sub-logoi they create cannot subsequently create other sub-logoi. On the other hand, stars can create planets which can further create sub-logoi. Is this potentially why Ra sees Galaxies and Solar Systems are being roughly equivalent? Is there anything in RS2 to support this kind of thinking?

User avatar
WhiteFyre
Discens
Discens
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 9:43 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Galaxies and Solar Systems

Post by WhiteFyre » Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:30 pm

Stars, planets, and people are entirely different entities. Galaxies are just stars revolving around a common point of reference, and are not a separate entity like the comparison between stars and planets. At least, that's what Ra seems to be indicating to me.

User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: Galaxies and Solar Systems

Post by Arcelius » Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:26 am

WhiteFyre wrote:Stars, planets, and people are entirely different entities. Galaxies are just stars revolving around a common point of reference, and are not a separate entity like the comparison between stars and planets. At least, that's what Ra seems to be indicating to me.
The Ra Material 29.6 wrote:Questioner: Are there any sub-sub-Logos that are found in our planetary system that are Logos that are “sub” to our sun?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.
The Ra Material 29.8 wrote:Questioner: Then every entity that exists would be a… some type of sub- or sub-sub-Logos. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct down to the limits of any observation, for the entire creation is alive.
The Ra Material 71.9 wrote: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%.
The Ra Material 29.1 wrote:Questioner: Is this— our sun (this planetary system) as we know it a sub-Logos or the physical rep— manifestation of a sub-Logos?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.
Based on these and many other quotes from Ra, it seems to me that all creation is alive and connected in a hierarchical way (some parents, some children, and some siblings).

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: Galaxies and Solar Systems

Post by LoneBear » Sat Mar 30, 2013 11:27 am

Arcelius wrote:Is there anything in RS2 to support this kind of thinking?
Yes, there is. Larson calls it a "gravitational limit." What Larson found is that effects, like E-M fields and gravity, are not continuous but a discrete progression--they don't continue on to infinity, there is a point where it just "stops" (where the effect is less than 1 natural unit). As such, all systems have a fixed limit of influence. If you consider that "limit" to be like the skin of an organism, creating a yin-yang boundary defining what is internal and external, you get the concept of the Logos.

The galaxy is a bunch of stuff, kept together by this skin of the gravitational limit.

Dwarfs, clusters and the like have the SAME structure, a bunch of stuff kept together by the gravitational limit, and this dwarf/cluster "logos" just becomes one of the objects being kept together in side the galaxy's "skin."

Solar systems are the same structure, a bunch of stuff kept together by its gravitational limit, making an organ in within the body of the cluster.

Planetary groupings, planet+moons+rings, also form a logos. Each object within, having a gravitational limit, is also a logos.

Planets, moons and rings are also a logos within the planetary grouping. For example, the Earth-moon logos, OR the Earth logos and Lunar logos, like a proton and electron making a hydrogen atom.

Biological entities have a skin, their "gravitational limit" that defines the psyche (logos) of a person.

This is the way Ra interprets structure, as a recursion of "stuff in a bubble" called a logos. From that perspective, it all looks the same, as it is just a change in scale (aka "scalar motion").

Daniel's papers repeatedly mention how the SAME stuff recurs in the RS, the only difference being a change of scale. Same situation here.

User avatar
daniel
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 261
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: P3X-774

Re: Galaxies and Solar Systems

Post by daniel » Sat Mar 30, 2013 11:41 am

WhiteFyre wrote:Stars, planets, and people are entirely different entities.
I would consider this a bad assumption, because stars, planets and people are all made of EXACTLY the same stuff--atoms and particles. You'll find water on Europa and identical water in your blood stream.

You had asked about intellectual honesty... your post reminded me of my "battle" with it. Honesty comes from being able to find the truth in anything, not the flaws. On the RS2 site there was a poll pointing this out:

Are you more interested in...
  1. Proving WHY something CANNOT be done? (8%)
  2. Determining HOW something CAN be done? (92%)
Put in psychological terms:
  1. Do you FEAR the truth? (why you can't; no advancement; stay in your safe and secure world)
  2. Are you CURIOUS about the truth? (why you CAN; learn something new; explore the unknown)
You'll know if you are "intellectually honest" if the first question you ask, when encountering something new, is, "How CAN this BE?" That is what opens doors.
Don't ever trust the people that claim the right to rule you. --Larken Rose
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/daniel.phoenixiii

User avatar
WhiteFyre
Discens
Discens
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 9:43 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Galaxies and Solar Systems

Post by WhiteFyre » Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:05 pm

I understand they're made of the same underlying particles, I was more trying to work out the logic of our solar system being a galaxy but the galaxy also being a galaxy by coming from the perspective of a Galactic galaxy is an assembly of stars whereas a Local galaxy is an assembly of stars, planets, and people. That Ra in those quotes didn't identify the Galactic galaxy as being separate from the Local galaxy seemed to indicate that perhaps they thought the Galactic galaxy didn't have its own special Logos, which seemed to contradict other things they've said.

User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: Galaxies and Solar Systems

Post by Arcelius » Sat Mar 30, 2013 2:19 pm

I'm trying to make some sense from the apparent (or otherwise) contradictions. Some more quotes from Ra.
The Ra Material 28.8 wrote:Questioner: Let’s take as an example the… the planet that we are on now and tell me how much of the creation was created by the same Logos that created this planet?

Ra: I am Ra. This planetary Logos is a strong Logos creating approximately two hundred fifty billion [250,000,000,000] of your star systems for Its creation. The, shall we say, laws or physical ways of this creation will remain, therefore, constant.
I take this passage to imply the scope of our larger Logos that created our Sun/Solar System as a sub-Logos (amongst many others).
The Ra Material 29.4 wrote:Questioner: What I’m saying is there are roughly 250 billion stars or suns like… something like ours in this… this major galaxy. Are they all part of the same sub-Logos?

Ra: I am Ra. They are all part of the same Logos. Your solar system, as you would call it, is a manifestation somewhat and slightly different due to the presence of a sub-Logos.
I take this to mean that our solar system is a sub-logos to another logos (perhaps the galaxy). However, I also take from this that it is possible for a solar system not to have a sub-logos.
The Ra Material 29.7 wrote:Questioner: Would you tell me what one of those— Would you give me an example of one of those… I’ll call sub-sub-Logos?

Ra: I am Ra. One example is your mind/body/spirit complex.
I take from this that we are potentially sub-sub-logos and sub-logos to our solar system. Also, from the previous quote, it is possible that some people are not mind/body/spirit complexes or a sub-sub-logos.
The Ra Material 29.13 wrote:Ra: I am Ra. The Logos creates all densities. Your question was unclear. However, we shall state the Logos does create both the space/time densities and the accompanying time/space densities.
I understand that this also includes the material from which our bodies are created (and other material things).
The Ra Material 28.7 wrote:Questioner: Thank you. Can— Does a unit of consciousness, an individualized unit of consciousness, create, say, a unit of the creation? I will give an example.

Would one individualized consciousness create one galaxy of stars, the type that has many millions of stars in it. Does this— Did— Does this happen?

Ra: I am Ra. This can happen. The possibilities are infinite. Thus a Logos may create what you call a star system or it may be the Logos creating billions of star systems. This is the cause of the confusion in the term galaxy, for there are many different Logos entities or creations and we would call each, using your sound vibration complexes, a galaxy.
The Ra Material 41.4 wrote:Questioner: In trying to build an understanding from the start, you might say, starting with intelligent infinity and getting to our present condition of being I think that I should go back and investigate our sun since it is the sub-Logos that creates all that we experience in this particular planetary system.

Will you give me a description of our sun?

Ra: I am Ra. This is a query which is not easily answered in your language, for the sun has various aspects in relation to intelligent infinity, to intelligent energy, and to each density of each planet, as you call these spheres. Moreover, these differences extend into the metaphysical or time/space part of your creation.

In relationship to intelligent infinity, the sun body is, equally with all parts of the infinite creation, part of that infinity.

In relation to the potentiated intelligent infinity which makes use of intelligent energy, it is the offspring, shall we say, of the Logos for a much larger number of sub-Logoi. The relationship is hierarchical in that the sub-Logos uses the intelligent energy in ways set forth by the Logos and uses its free will to co-create the, shall we say, full nuances of your densities as you experience them.

In relationship to the densities, the sun body may physically, as you would say, be seen to be a large body of gaseous elements undergoing the processes of fusion and radiating heat and light.

Metaphysically, the sun achieves a meaning to fourth through seventh density according to the growing abilities of entities in these densities to grasp the living creation and co-entity, or other-self, nature of this sun body. Thus by the sixth density the sun may be visited and inhabited by those dwelling in time/space and may even be partially created from moment to moment by the processes of sixth-density entities in their evolution.
The Ra Material 65.17 wrote:Questioner: Then we deal with an entity that has not yet formed a social memory but is yet an entity just as one of us can be called a single entity. Can we continue this observation of the conglomerate entity through the galactic entity, or shall I say, planetary system type of entity? Let me try to phrase it this way. Could I look at a single sun in its planetary system as an entity and then look at a major galaxy with its billions of stars as an entity? Can I continue this extrapolation in this way?

Ra: I am Ra. You can but not within the framework of third-density space/time.

Let us attempt to speak upon this interesting subject. In your space/time you and your peoples are the parents of that which is in the womb. The Earth, as you call it, is ready to be born and the delivery is not going smoothly. When this entity has become born it will be instinct with the social memory complex of its parents which have become fourth-density positive. In this density there is a broader view.

You may begin to see your relationship to the Logos or sun with which you are most intimately associated. This is not the relationship of parent to child but of Creator, that is Logos, to Creator that is the mind/body/spirit complex, as Logos. When this realization occurs you may then widen the field of “eyeshot,” if you will, infinitely recognizing parts of the Logos throughout the one infinite creation and feeling, with the roots of Mind informing the intuition, the parents aiding their planets in evolution in reaches vast and unknown in the creation, for this process occurs many, many times in the evolution of the creation as an whole.
Perhaps this is something that won't make sense in 3rd density. Still, this is something that has been bothering me lately (i.e. these apparent contradictions). Any insight you have is appreciated.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: Galaxies and Solar Systems

Post by LoneBear » Sun Mar 31, 2013 10:26 am

Arcelius wrote:I take this passage to imply the scope of our larger Logos that created our Sun/Solar System as a sub-Logos (amongst many others).
Understand that channeled communication like this has limitations--the instrument can only play the notes it is capable of. In other words, if Carla was unfamiliar with a concept or could not "put it into words," then the verbalization was not accurate. This happened during some Q'uo sessions, where Q'uo admitted the instrument was incapable of relating the answer they wanted to send.

What I've also noticed is confusion between physical structures, such as the gravitational limit, and temporal ones--archetypes. Logos, being a life form, has both a physical presence and a nonlocal, unobservable "soul." There seems to be a mix here.
Arcelius wrote:
The Ra Material 29.4 wrote:Questioner: What I’m saying is there are roughly 250 billion stars or suns like… something like ours in this… this major galaxy. Are they all part of the same sub-Logos?

Ra: I am Ra. They are all part of the same Logos. Your solar system, as you would call it, is a manifestation somewhat and slightly different due to the presence of a sub-Logos.
I take this to mean that our solar system is a sub-logos to another logos (perhaps the galaxy). However, I also take from this that it is possible for a solar system not to have a sub-logos.
I believe that may be a reference to the Titan/Annunaki presence in our solar system as a sub-logos. They influenced a lot of life in our solar system, that would have evolved differently without their presence.
Arcelius wrote:I take from this that we are potentially sub-sub-logos and sub-logos to our solar system. Also, from the previous quote, it is possible that some people are not mind/body/spirit complexes or a sub-sub-logos.
People that are still locked into the group collective are only considered "mind/body" complexes by Ra, so you are probably right.
Arcelius wrote:In relationship to the densities, the sun body may physically, as you would say, be seen to be a large body of gaseous elements undergoing the processes of fusion and radiating heat and light.
Point in case here... the energy generation mechanism of the sun is fission, not fusion, as defined by Larson in Universe of Motion. Both Don and Carla knew Dewey, and his theories. If you read carefully, Ra limits the fusion process to "gaseous elements"--the photosphere, where hydrogen-helium fusion does take place to radiate light. But it does not apply to the solar interior. Ra was able to see this inside Carla's mind, which is why the comment was qualified to "gaseous." Unless you have the same background as the instrument, there will always be unstated assumptions that lead to erroneous interpretations.
Arcelius wrote:Perhaps this is something that won't make sense in 3rd density. Still, this is something that has been bothering me lately (i.e. these apparent contradictions). Any insight you have is appreciated.
It can make sense in 3rd density, if you have the background to understand it. As Larson points out, most of the science you were taught is backwards, having to use "devices" (like the Greek epicycles to explain retrograde motion of the planets) to make the jumps between backwards pieces. So when you get confused by something, take a look at the assumptions you are holding true, and are trying to force-fit into the knowledge being presented.

User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: Galaxies and Solar Systems

Post by Arcelius » Mon Apr 01, 2013 7:30 am

LoneBear wrote:Unless you have the same background as the instrument, there will always be unstated assumptions that lead to erroneous interpretations.
Thank-you for reminding me of that. It had slipped my mind for some reason.

Also, thanks for your discussion around the gravitational "skin". That does make sense to me and I think it resolves my question around why Ra would view both Solar Systems and Galaxies as being equivalent. Spatially, the hierarchy of logos and sub-logoi is then a question of size and who is "inside" of whom and is reflected from the temporal densities.

It does make me wonder a bit as to what the next level may be. An octave logos?

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: Galaxies and Solar Systems

Post by LoneBear » Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:19 pm

Arcelius wrote:Also, thanks for your discussion around the gravitational "skin". That does make sense to me and I think it resolves my question around why Ra would view both Solar Systems and Galaxies as being equivalent. Spatially, the hierarchy of logos and sub-logoi is then a question of size and who is "inside" of whom and is reflected from the temporal densities.
This is one of the reasons Larson did not like the "container" model, because it is a recursion of contained, container, containee... he just refers to that structure as "motion," outside, boundary, inside. In our conventional reference system, outside=space, boundary=unit space, inside=time. In the cosmic sector, 3D time, it is flipped around: outside=time, boundary=unit time, inside=space.

Motions can "compound" like links in a chain, hooking insides and outsides together, to make a recursion. For example, the "outside" of a photon can connect to the "inside" of an electron, producing a charged electron.
Arcelius wrote:It does make me wonder a bit as to what the next level may be. An octave logos?
No way to really tell, because the "rules" might not be the same outside this octave. There could be something else in another octave that we are incapable of understanding. IMHO, there's plenty here to keep me busy!

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: Galaxies and Solar Systems

Post by LoneBear » Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:35 am

Arcelius wrote:
The Ra Material 16.35 wrote:Ra: I am Ra. I see the confusion. We have difficulty with your language.

The galaxy term must be split. We call galaxy that vibrational complex that is local. Thus, your sun is what we would call the center of a galaxy. We see you have another meaning for this term.
To Ra (and potentially others), there is little difference between a galaxy and a solar system. Our solar system (sun) has sub-logoi which are the planets. The planets also have sub-logoi which are people (in our case) or at least, they have the potential to have people of some kind. Thus, at least 3 levels of logoi in a hierarchy. A galaxy contains typically millions of stars (or star systems, star clusters, stuff, etc.) of which each star may have inhabited planets. This could be 4 levels of logoi. Ra does differentiate between stars, planets, and people but not really between stars and galaxies. Why?
I had forgotten about this quote from Ra... takes on a whole, new meaning with the discovery that what we call "galaxies, far, far away" may actually be "solar systems, near, near, at hand." (See: Visibility of Stars and Galaxies (Problem) on the RS2 site)

The ancient astronomers tried to calculate the location of our sun, with respect to the center of the galaxy--and their initial conclusions were that we were very close to the center, not way out on the edge, like astronomers believe, today. When I started correcting the galactic distances by adjusting them for solar system size, the "local group" of galaxies became a local cluster of solar systems, and our "solar system," Sol, was intersecting the Milky Way solar system at a sharp angle. And the Milky Way is not that much bigger than our system is (we're looking at it through the bubble of the gravitational limit--like a fish-eye lens).

If you think of it on this much, smaller scale, the concept of logoi that Ra discusses starts to make more sense. I have found that Ra uses the Medieval Latin meaning of words, and as such, "star" refers to anything that is lit up in the sky, which includes planets, moons and big rocks. (I've noticed that translations from Japanese in the old, monster movies will often use the word "star" instead of planet or asteroid, because of this older definition. "A group of stars between Mars and Jupiter.")

That would make the "local neighborhood" of galaxies a "logoi neighborhood," analogous to an apartment complex, rather than a bunch of scattered, individual houses. Some of these systems are within the gravitational limits of each other, like Sol and the Milky Way, so one logos would be interacting with another.

I found it rather interesting to re-read Ra's statements with this context in mind.
Keeper of the Troth of Ásgarðr, Moriar prius quam dedecorer.

User avatar
infinity
Centurio
Centurio
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 7:35 am

Re: Galaxies and Solar Systems

Post by infinity » Wed Apr 02, 2014 2:47 am

LoneBear wrote:
Arcelius wrote:
The Ra Material 16.35 wrote:Ra: I am Ra. I see the confusion. We have difficulty with your language.

The galaxy term must be split. We call galaxy that vibrational complex that is local. Thus, your sun is what we would call the center of a galaxy. We see you have another meaning for this term.
To Ra (and potentially others), there is little difference between a galaxy and a solar system. Our solar system (sun) has sub-logoi which are the planets. The planets also have sub-logoi which are people (in our case) or at least, they have the potential to have people of some kind. Thus, at least 3 levels of logoi in a hierarchy. A galaxy contains typically millions of stars (or star systems, star clusters, stuff, etc.) of which each star may have inhabited planets. This could be 4 levels of logoi. Ra does differentiate between stars, planets, and people but not really between stars and galaxies. Why?
I had forgotten about this quote from Ra... takes on a whole, new meaning with the discovery that what we call "galaxies, far, far away" may actually be "solar systems, near, near, at hand." (See: Visibility of Stars and Galaxies (Problem) on the RS2 site)

The ancient astronomers tried to calculate the location of our sun, with respect to the center of the galaxy--and their initial conclusions were that we were very close to the center, not way out on the edge, like astronomers believe, today. When I started correcting the galactic distances by adjusting them for solar system size, the "local group" of galaxies became a local cluster of solar systems, and our "solar system," Sol, was intersecting the Milky Way solar system at a sharp angle. And the Milky Way is not that much bigger than our system is (we're looking at it through the bubble of the gravitational limit--like a fish-eye lens).

If you think of it on this much, smaller scale, the concept of logoi that Ra discusses starts to make more sense. I have found that Ra uses the Medieval Latin meaning of words, and as such, "star" refers to anything that is lit up in the sky, which includes planets, moons and big rocks. (I've noticed that translations from Japanese in the old, monster movies will often use the word "star" instead of planet or asteroid, because of this older definition. "A group of stars between Mars and Jupiter.")

That would make the "local neighborhood" of galaxies a "logoi neighborhood," analogous to an apartment complex, rather than a bunch of scattered, individual houses. Some of these systems are within the gravitational limits of each other, like Sol and the Milky Way, so one logos would be interacting with another.

I found it rather interesting to re-read Ra's statements with this context in mind.
I wonder if part of the reason that this definition is used, is because of similarities in the time-space sector between stars, planets, and even some asteroids etc. Maybe to us its so vastly different (not only because of how we use the word) but also because of our usual perception from the material or space-time side of things.
"The death of dogma is the birth of morality" - Kant

User avatar
joeyv23
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 681
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Galaxies and Solar Systems

Post by joeyv23 » Wed Apr 02, 2014 8:04 am

Arcelius wrote:
The Ra Material 65.17 wrote: Let us attempt to speak upon this interesting subject. In your space/time you and your peoples are the parents of that which is in the womb. The Earth, as you call it, is ready to be born and the delivery is not going smoothly. When this entity has become born it will be instinct with the social memory complex of its parents which have become fourth-density positive.
The Ra Material 41.4 wrote:
In relation to the potentiated intelligent infinity which makes use of intelligent energy, it is the offspring, shall we say, of the Logos for a much larger number of sub-Logoi. The relationship is hierarchical in that the sub-Logos uses the intelligent energy in ways set forth by the Logos and uses its free will to co-create the, shall we say, full nuances of your densities as you experience them.


Even though it's stated that there isn't a parent child relationship, rather than that of a Creator, creation, would it be flawed to think that perhaps the Logos is feminine in nature? Goddess rather than God, creating from the Logos to sub-logos and so on, a form of asexual reproduction.. cloning, or mirroring itself into a new being.. all the way down to our 3d level where for whatever reason, it was decided there would be a different type of reproduction that involved an external partner and some type of union between the two. Perhaps this could be where duality came into the picture? I read somewhere that when we're developing as a fetus, even males start out as female, before sexual differentiation occurs. This fits my line of thinking but also means that women are sub-sub-Logos, where does that leave us guys? If this line of thinking is valid, could it be that this distortion of truth was intentional at the hands of the sub-logos that influenced ours?

After having read through the Visibility of Stars and Galaxies a bit, I'm now seeing it like this..
Image
Phil Plait wrote:On board the International Space Station, ESA astronaut André Kuipers just put up this ridiculously cool and fun picture of himself playing with water in space
Apply this image to the thought of our local galaxy and beyond as being drops in an infinite ocean, and you'll see where my brain's gone with all of this.


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... zwX6VRdXZg
"Living is not necessary, but navigation is." --Pompey
"Navigation is necessary in order to live." --Me

User avatar
joeyv23
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 681
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Galaxies and Solar Systems

Post by joeyv23 » Wed Apr 02, 2014 8:38 am

As an afterthought, I applied cymatics to the visual. Perhaps gravity, electromagnetism, and other energetic forces are the music by which the drop takes its form? Each drop being a symphony unto itself, consisting of many parts, but always being a part of a larger symphony?

Ok I'm going to sleep on this now lol Thanks all for the brain candy!
"Living is not necessary, but navigation is." --Pompey
"Navigation is necessary in order to live." --Me

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: Galaxies and Solar Systems

Post by LoneBear » Wed Apr 02, 2014 1:49 pm

That's an amazing picture and shows exactly what I was talking about... please post to the RS2 forum, if you will. That is quite a find.

We're the "little guy" in the center, looking out at that big, galaxy-sized person!
Keeper of the Troth of Ásgarðr, Moriar prius quam dedecorer.

Post Reply