Any LL channelings on Planetary Distances?

I recently learned about the Titius–Bode law. In summary its a mathematical equation that approximates the position of the planets in our solar system in terms of AU (the Distance from the earth to the sun). from the sun. The more modern updated version of this formula is incredibly accurate. However the scientific community rejects the notion that this formula has anything to do with the position of our planetary bodies calling it a coincidence.
Is there any channelings from llresearch that deal with the positions of planetary bodies?


Indirectly, yes, DMDJ.
The questioner knew of Dewy Larson, who discovered the unified theory of physics, and published his first book describing it, in 1959, see 20.7Dewey Larson. There were at least ten times either the questioner, or RA, brought up Larson.

In relation to your question, Larson describes gravity in the way RA agrees with. It is an inherent property of matter, and therefore acts instantaneously at a distance. Larson also describes the expansion of the universe in the same way RA describes light.

Space is not a container. Space is not separate from time. Space and time have three reciprocal dimensions. This is mind boggling, and it took me three years to learn it from Larson’s books, after learning of him from the RA Material.

This isn’t an appropriate forum to go into details. I already tried to start that in a different thread that got of the rails over to Tesla.

You can go to. here/ and start learning. Mostly, you will have to unlearn what you think you know. That was my experience. The universe is quite simple, if we view it from the creator’s point of view.


Thanks Gottafly Appreciate the info, Will check out your links and do some research on Larson when I get some time. Just in the middle of shifting places and things a bit chaotic but looking foward to this.

Keep in mind, today’s mathematical solutions are extremely accurate, because they are empirically based. They’re concepts of what’s really going on are backwards, but one can always add another term to an equation without knowing why there was an errroe in the first place.

Many scientists and engineers create
simple models that approximate observation.
As the models improve the error between
prediction and observed grows small.

In many cases, the nature of building
models to generate actionable information
might be considered as having a negative
polarity bias because the nature of power
and control commonly accompany it.

The Ra Materials seem infamous in the
fumbling of numerical answers. I think
there’s some passage containing a hint
that a positive polarity bias makes for
a poor student of negative polarity
practice, (paraphrased.). It may be that
numerical fumbling is by example,
a subtle encouragement to polarize
positive. However Ra’s skipped steps
in negative polarity early on posed
6D integration challenges later -
but who cares when you’re at a
density spanning billions of years?

So it behooves a person aware of this
important choice in polarity and the
actions they pursue congruent in intent.
When there’s conviction to polarize
one way but actions that support the
other - this likely manifests a muddled
un-harvestable state where instead of
evolving in the direction desired, there’s
a dissolution to lower densities.

I’ve met many people who sincerely
believe this one incarnation for them
is it, and nothing beyond it. Nihilism
seems a legitimate life choice which
lends contrast to other ways of being.
Of course there’s epiphanies and
sometimes people change their mind,
so I still hold hope for them despite
accepting their idea as theirs to own.