Re: Who's rattling your cage/tent?
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 8:18 pm
I'm not at all sure what a Skyrod is - please explain...?stalkingluke wrote:Probably just a Skyrod nothing to worry about.
The Traditional Fisherman's Forum
https://www.traditionalfisherman.com/
I'm not at all sure what a Skyrod is - please explain...?stalkingluke wrote:Probably just a Skyrod nothing to worry about.
farliesbirthday wrote:I'm not at all sure what a Skyrod is - please explain...?stalkingluke wrote:Probably just a Skyrod nothing to worry about.
That does it. I'm convinced!stalkingluke wrote:farliesbirthday wrote:I'm not at all sure what a Skyrod is - please explain...?stalkingluke wrote:Probably just a Skyrod nothing to worry about.
Skyrods,Skyfish or skysnakes are living organisms that in surprisingly large numbers are constantly flying about us but at such extreme speeds that they are rarely seen with the naked eye. It was not until fairly recently with the use of high speed filming techniques that they were first discovered. The race is on to be the first to capture one for closer examination.
Snape has yet to spot one in a test tube so is not yet convinced but there is plenty of scientific evidence as shown on the well respected youtube-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ3jWACKU3M
Thanks for the explanation. :hat: I'm embarrassed to admit I still can't quite get it. No shortfall in the explanation - I just don't have the sort of brain that can cope with the Big Bang, Relativity way of thinking. I once took ill trying to follow a public lecture by Roger Penrose.Physicists usually keep away from this due to a lack of evidence when it comes to communication between possible dimensions.
The current way of thinking is that the way we perceive time is not the way it is. The other dimensions all exist (although on an unimaginably small scale) as do all possible pasts and futures. Time is a little like walking across a field through long grass. if you look back you can see the line you have flattened in the grass but the alternative possible paths (an infinite variety) lie outside your chosen path, looking to the front (the future) you have a infinite amount of possible paths ahead of you. In terms of probability you are more likely to walk the possible paths closest to you but all possible future paths exist. The difference is that in a field of paths you can move freely back and forward and side to side but we are limited to linear movement in time. Yesterday and the events that occurred still exist (like the frames in a film) but we do not have access to them any more. If you sit in a chair in which another sat yesterday in a very real sense that person is sitting in the chair but they are sitting in it yesterday and that does exist. Physicists will happily go this far but are unwilling to go as far as to suggest that some form of communication could be passed from that person to you.....
What this alludes to is that we can never experience 'reality' directly. All our experiences come through the filters of our senses and in a very real way there may not be any absolute reality.TonyPrior wrote:Thanks for the explanation. :hat: I'm embarrassed to admit I still can't quite get it. No shortfall in the explanation - I just don't have the sort of brain that can cope with the Big Bang, Relativity way of thinking. I once took ill trying to follow a public lecture by Roger Penrose.Physicists usually keep away from this due to a lack of evidence when it comes to communication between possible dimensions.
The current way of thinking is that the way we perceive time is not the way it is. The other dimensions all exist (although on an unimaginably small scale) as do all possible pasts and futures. Time is a little like walking across a field through long grass. if you look back you can see the line you have flattened in the grass but the alternative possible paths (an infinite variety) lie outside your chosen path, looking to the front (the future) you have a infinite amount of possible paths ahead of you. In terms of probability you are more likely to walk the possible paths closest to you but all possible future paths exist. The difference is that in a field of paths you can move freely back and forward and side to side but we are limited to linear movement in time. Yesterday and the events that occurred still exist (like the frames in a film) but we do not have access to them any more. If you sit in a chair in which another sat yesterday in a very real sense that person is sitting in the chair but they are sitting in it yesterday and that does exist. Physicists will happily go this far but are unwilling to go as far as to suggest that some form of communication could be passed from that person to you.....
Worm Holes and Strings apart, I think there are two other dimensions by which we humanoids experience the world. The first is the objective, universal dimension, by which things can be measured etc. A tap is a tap, a hat is a hat. Simples. The second is the subjective dimension. Inasmuch as, if we have no knowledge of a thing, it does not exist for us. Likewise, if we 'know' (sometimes aka 'believe') something, then it does exist. We construct, mentally, the world we live in. A hat to us might appear to be a water vessel to a desert-dwelling native. I.e. perception and the knowedge that is based on it has a plastic, uncertain and constructive basis. Short of the bizarre experiences of psychotics, delusions and hallucinations etc, very many people have harmless, strong beliefs, to the point of 'knowing'. Some of them share this knowledge-base/belief system with many others, but not with yet-others. Just like the ultra-elite of the scientific world.
There is a point at which one could argue that all knowledge is based upon concensus, shared 'stories' rather than an external reality. Given the imaginative capabilities of the human brain, and the tendency of brain-owners to find/construct congruence in personal experience, including the experiencing of congruent physical sensations and visions, stories about people being spooked by inexplicable physical events might perhaps regarded as no more strange than the hypothetical constructions of Professors Hawking, Penrose et al. This is not to disrespect achievement based on hard-core Newtonian science. Just a way, perhaps, of explaining some weird events.
BTW, I am not a tree-hugger, nor superstitious :D