MANDELA EFFECT - I just discovered a jaw dropping change

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

The first time I really saw the comparative sizes of the continents I was about 15 or 16 years old, before that we had always seen the mercator projections. It was all Euro centric and then Northern Hemisphere centric before that. The world still looks weird to me with Africa so long and ...creepy!

Well, to be fair, Africa isn't really shaped like that. You probably know that, so I'm sharing just in case anyone else is confused. That particular map gets the proportions right at the expense of the shapes.

a reply to: heineken

What you and all others like about the mandella effect is it exonerates you in in your own mind for your own minds failings be it education or just memory loss.
Blaming the mandella effect is just passing the buck.

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: heineken
what i like about the mandela effect , is that i was experiencing some changes before knowing it exists. I only learned about it a month ago.

Our position in the milky way was the first , i treasure it a lot. I remember how suddenly pictures showing us closer to the black hole started to appear. I just thought that maybe they can't tell were we are, or they have no clue. In reality though if I dug in , i would have discovered that suddenly there is no evidence that they ever said we were from the outer edge!

Is this the sort of picture you remember? Notice how it creates the impression that we are closer to the edge because the outside of the galaxy is less dense, almost ethereal. Also keep in mind that these are all artist's renditions, and some are more concerned with accuracy than others, while our understanding of our own galaxy is ever changing. It's not like we can take a photo of it.

Hello Sir ! and thanks for your comments.

I already examined the picture you posted, the location on this picture it is close to the black hole like the others, what is different is the inclination of the galaxy, it is rotated in a way our solar system looks like its in the edge.

This is how it was (I edited this picture)



now its like this :

originally posted by: Greggers
Here is an article that explains how astronomers have changed their minds, based on ever evolving evidence, about how close we are to the center of the galaxy.

www.usnews.com...

Also, consider the fact that science is advancing at an exponential rate, which means our ideas are changing faster than ever before. And due to the internet, the new ideas are propagating rapidly, sometimes leaving nary a trace of the old ones.

So I'd say the whole "location of the earth" thing is merely a case of new science and more artist's renditions.

Interesting article indeed!!

Unfortunately it lacks illustrations and figures.

I will look for more articles on this because it can't be the only one and others may contain were scientists used to say we were to where they think we are now.

a reply to: Greggers

So I'd say the whole "location of the earth" thing is merely a case of new science and more artist's renditions.

I thought the same for the last 4 years or so. There is no trace they ever said we were this far form the centre. All the images are gone.



do you recall illustrations showing the above ?

a reply to: heineken

If this Mandela thing is true, then i must be stuck in Mandela hell, this Planet is so off from what it should be it's mind bending. The crazies never stop, like zombies in a really bad B flick.

originally posted by: Greggers
Here is an article that explains how astronomers have changed their minds, based on ever evolving evidence, about how close we are to the center of the galaxy.

www.usnews.com...

Also, consider the fact that science is advancing at an exponential rate, which means our ideas are changing faster than ever before. And due to the internet, the new ideas are propagating rapidly, sometimes leaving nary a trace of the old ones.

So I'd say the whole "location of the earth" thing is merely a case of new science and more artist's renditions.

We must find more articles on this, hopefully as i said with illustrations.



This author may have thought the same as I and others did, that it was a re-calculation , but in reality is different. You can't find any evidence they said were were from the location I specified.

originally posted by: Greggers
Here is an article that explains how astronomers have changed their minds, based on ever evolving evidence, about how close we are to the center of the galaxy.

www.usnews.com...

Also, consider the fact that science is advancing at an exponential rate, which means our ideas are changing faster than ever before. And due to the internet, the new ideas are propagating rapidly, sometimes leaving nary a trace of the old ones.

So I'd say the whole "location of the earth" thing is merely a case of new science and more artist's renditions.

I found more articles about this which also have illustrations!!!

Still they are not saying we were on the outer edge.

Same from Space.com

Universe today

Some cultures used to say the Earth was the center of the Universe. But in a series of “great demotions,” as astronomer Carl Sagan put it in his book Pale Blue Dot, we found out that we are quite far from the center of anything. The Sun holds the prominent center position in the center of the Solar System, but our star is just average-sized, located in a pedestrian starry suburb — a smaller galactic arm, far from the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.

But perhaps our suburb isn’t as quiet or lowly as we thought. A new model examining the Milky Way’s structure says our “Local Arm” of stars is more prominent than we believed.

It look like Alberto Sanna never said we are closer to the centre, but that the arm we are located in is more prominent.

Do you guys remember our solar system depicted on the far outer edge of the galaxy ?

Back to Mars...this is what resonance with my belie es

a reply to: heineken

Then you weren't educated properly. You can fix that though.

a reply to: heineken

Those aren't to scale. Don't embarrass yourself.

a reply to: heineken

No, I always remember the solar system where it is. I believe the issue here is definitely your education background. That's NOT an insult.

originally posted by: heineken
a reply to: Greggers

So I'd say the whole "location of the earth" thing is merely a case of new science and more artist's renditions.

I thought the same for the last 4 years or so. There is no trace they ever said we were this far form the centre. All the images are gone.

do you recall illustrations showing the above ?

Move the yellow dot one arm inward and I definitely remember it. In fact, you can still find that drawing, although it is rapidly being replaced by models showing us closer to the center. Google used to cache everything -- you could dig up web pages that were taken down 10 years ago. Unfortunately, you can't do that anymore (at least, not that I know of), so I find it quite likely that the older pics showing the earth even further out are nearly extinct on the Web.

By the way, another thing complicating matters is that astronomers found a NEW OUTER ARM (the drawing of the galaxy with the new arm is prominent on the web now), which of course creates the impression that earth is closer to the center, when it's really not. The outside edge just got further away.

a reply to: Greggers

CERN has not proven that other dimensions exist. String Theory, which at present is also unfalsifiable, claims that tiny SUBATOMIC dimensions exist, the number of which depends upon the version of the theory. While it's possible that research into multiple dimensions might one day yield something that is FALSIFIABLE, so far it has not.

But they plan on proving at least the existence of them this year.

They also do not deny the possible existence of actual alternate worlds and then they act like they are talking about extra spatial dimensions.


press.cern...

Extra dimensions would not necessarily consist of alternate worlds, as depicted in science fiction. They could simply be too small for us to see.

To understand how this would work, imagine walking along a tightrope. You are able to move only forwards and backwards without falling. In this situation, it is almost as if you exist in just one dimension of space. However, an ant walking along the same tightrope has a different point of view. The ant is able to move forwards and backwards but also around the tightrope. To such a small creature, a tightrope exists in two spatial dimensions instead of just one.

Btw, there's so much wrong with these comparisons.

Anyway,

Even if extra dimensions are small, they can still have an effect on how we experience the world. Scientists think that finding evidence of extra dimensions could help answer some of their questions about gravity, still one of the most mysterious forces in the universe.

Finding evidence of extra dimensions could also give credence to theories of physics beyond the Standard Model. Models of string theory, for example, require the existence of at least 11 dimensions. Discovering extra dimensions could give scientists clues about the mysterious workings of gravity and could help them to unify the forces or determine the validity of string theory.

It could also raise more questions about ways other dimensions shape the world around us.

It could also raise more questions about ways other dimensions shape the world around us.

You got that right!

Don't get me wrong -- I actually find String Theory fascinating. It certainly has support in mathematics, and is of interest to particle physicists. There is certainly much more to string theory than there is to ME.

So at what point does it become ridiculous to you? It is only a small step further from the stuff that these scientists are talking about and what you find fascinating.

a reply to: heineken

Are you honestly saying that you believe that image to be a "to scale" ration representation of Mars to Earth?! Why?

Honestly - I don't know where you live but did you know go to school? Even I learned that Mars was roughly 1/3 the size of Earth, hence why the gravity on Mars was, roughly, 1/3rd that of Earth.

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident

But they plan on proving at least the existence of them this year.

If you had limited your claim to the above, I wouldn't have corrected you.

So at what point does it become ridiculous to you? It is only a small step further from the stuff that these scientists are talking about and what you find fascinating.

Are you trying to say that ME is only a "small step further" from String Theory? If so, that's wrong -- it's a "huge leap of faith" further, as one definitely does not lead to the other.

The stuff these scientists are talking about is stuff I do find fascinating. They are talking about gathering evidence to support String Theory. After 40 years, it's about time because at present, it's "not even wrong." The reason it's fascinating is that it provides a mathematical solution that would allow a reconciliation of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, plus provide an elegant solution that would remove the veil from the quantum world, finally giving Einstein the victory over Bohr in the long debate about whether "God plays dice with the universe."

We're talking about the Holy Grail of physics -- nothing less.

What I don't find fascinating are people who play loose with facts they barely comprehend in an effort to provide some scientific legitimacy to what appears to be nothing more than faulty memory.

a reply to: Greggers

If you had limited your claim to the above, I wouldn't have corrected you.

There was nothing to correct.

I didn't say it was proven yet, I said "according to CERN", they obviously think these other dimensions exist.

Are you trying to say that ME is only a "small step further" from String Theory? If so, that's wrong -- it's a "huge leap of faith" further, as one definitely does not lead to the other.

It's only a small step further in its "ridiculousness". I mean the universe is made up of rubber band like vibrating strings you say?

*points finger and laughs*

There is not even direct evidence for it, it is just a theory taking leaps of faith.

What I don't find fascinating are people who play loose with facts they barely comprehend in an effort to provide some scientific legitimacy to what appears to be nothing more than faulty memory.

So where does it become ridiculous? The existence of other dimensions or the shifting between them?

They are talking about gathering evidence to support String Theory.

It was just one of the things they are talking about in relation to their main focus with these specific experiments, which is their research into other dimensions.

So according to most of the know-it-alls here, the most logical scenario is that the OP has an imperfect memory and is incorrectly recalling that Mars was reported to be a similar size to Earth? The proof being that everyone else remembers Mars being much smaller, like it is.

Isn't it illogical to believe that an alternate timeline can be easily debunked by submitting evidence that one particular timeline (this one) has not changed?

If you want to pursue your "The OP is crazy - There is only one timeline" argument, it would seem to me that a more likely explanation would be a lack of exposure/interest/awareness of the solar system and astronomy explains the discrepancy, as opposed to memory failure.

For mine, I'm happy to take the OP's word (and memory) for it and agree that in another timeline, one that I haven't experienced, Mars is indeed only slightly smaller than Earth.

In terms of proof, perhaps the OP could consult with brothers/sisters/ friends that were with him/her in THAT timeline to verify if they too, remember Mars being Earth-like in size?

originally posted by: -mytym-
So according to most of the know-it-alls here, the most logical scenario is that the OP has an imperfect memory and is incorrectly recalling that Mars was reported to be a similar size to Earth? The proof being that everyone else remembers Mars being much smaller, like it is.

Isn't it illogical to believe that an alternate timeline can be easily debunked by submitting evidence that one particular timeline (this one) has not changed?

If you want to pursue your "The OP is crazy - There is only one timeline" argument, it would seem to me that a more likely explanation would be a lack of exposure/interest/awareness of the solar system and astronomy explains the discrepancy, as opposed to memory failure.

For mine, I'm happy to take the OP's word (and memory) for it and agree that in another timeline, one that I haven't experienced, Mars is indeed only slightly smaller than Earth.

In terms of proof, perhaps the OP could consult with brothers/sisters/ friends that were with him/her in THAT timeline to verify if they too, remember Mars being Earth-like in size?

Thanks for such a mature response.

lack of exposure/interest/awareness of the solar system and astronomy

I would like to assure you that I am a well informed educated man trying to understand what is going on. As I said before, astronomy was one of my hobbies. Though of course I have to spend most of the time working writing software and keeping up to date with the IT world which as you may know it is very dynamic.

My goal is not to make anyone believing me but only to do my best finding more people with the same experience.

I perfectly understand that what I say sounds crazy, but its nothing compared to the craziness I experience discovering :

1 - Our solar system in this reality is close to the centre.
2 - The North Pole in this reality is nothing compared to what I know.
3 - The North Pole in this reality was never on Google Earth nor Earth 3D Textures when I used to check it out locating research stations.
4 - The view of the MIlky Way from earth is nothing like it used to be in the other reality. Now the spiral arm can be photographed looking like an arch Oo
5 - Mars was bigger
7 - Pleiades were much further away
8 - My pulse was in the centre of the wrist little bit down.

As you can see, the above is very powerful, also take account how they make sense together.

If its not so powerful , believe me, i'm not doing this effort. I can easily carry on with my life.

perhaps the OP could consult with brothers/sisters/ friends that were with him/her

This is a very good suggestion. I already questioned family members, whom all are shocked and many friends support me.

originally posted by: -mytym-
So according to most of the know-it-alls here, the most logical scenario is that the OP has an imperfect memory and is incorrectly recalling that Mars was reported to be a similar size to Earth? The proof being that everyone else remembers Mars being much smaller, like it is.

Isn't it illogical to believe that an alternate timeline can be easily debunked by submitting evidence that one particular timeline (this one) has not changed?

If you want to pursue your "The OP is crazy - There is only one timeline" argument, it would seem to me that a more likely explanation would be a lack of exposure/interest/awareness of the solar system and astronomy explains the discrepancy, as opposed to memory failure.

For mine, I'm happy to take the OP's word (and memory) for it and agree that in another timeline, one that I haven't experienced, Mars is indeed only slightly smaller than Earth.

In terms of proof, perhaps the OP could consult with brothers/sisters/ friends that were with him/her in THAT tim
eline to verify if they too, remember Mars being Earth-like in size?

For the record, when one offers "faulty memory" as an explanation for ME, it generally includes the possibility that the memory was never formed correctly in the first place.

Furthermore, there can be no proof of the alternate timeline notion, as it's completely unfalsifiable and therefore not within the realm of that which can be established empirically.