It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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!
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.
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.
So I'd say the whole "location of the earth" thing is merely a case of new science and more artist's renditions.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
But they plan on proving at least the existence of them this year.
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.
If you had limited your claim to the above, I wouldn't have corrected you.
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.
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.
They are talking about gathering evidence to support String Theory.
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?
lack of exposure/interest/awareness of the solar system and astronomy
perhaps the OP could consult with brothers/sisters/ friends that were with him/her
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?