CERN Scientists Suffer Mandela Effect When Data "Disappears" - *snip*

Forgot to add this to my original post - so I added it there and am going to repost it here.

"I'm well aware that debunkers don't understand, or don't believe the Mandela Effect is real. I already know their opinion - I'm far more interested in what believers have to say about the topic; to that end I'm choosing not to respond to them (they aren't my target audience).

Debunkers are going to intentionally flood this topic. The more you engage with them, the further the thread drifts from it's intended conversation - which may be their goal but it's not mine.

This isn't a topic of 'if the Mandela Effect is real'. This topic takes the position that the Mandela Effect is real, then goes forward from there. Good, condensed communication from believers can occur by side-stepping their bait."

...Just a thought for those that want to communicate about the Mandela Effect from the perspective of it already being real.

Results from the Large Hadron Collider show that a "bump" in the machine's data, previously rumoured to represent a new particle, has gone away.

So it was there at first, but now it is not there anymore. So how do you explain this?

Speaking to journalists in Chicago at the International Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP), Prof Charlton said it was a remarkable coincidence - but purely a coincidence - that two separate LHC detectors, Atlas and CMS, picked up matching "bumps".

"It just seems to be a statistical fluke, that the two experiments saw something at the same mass.

"Coincidences are always strange when they happen - but we've been looking very hard at our data to make sure we fully understand them, and we don't see anything in the new sample."

I see, so the "bump" was never there, it just happened to be that two seperate detectors both picked up matching bumps by mistake and it is a coincidence.

Coincidences are strange.

originally posted by: Pearj
Debunkers are going to intentionally flood this topic. The more you engage with them, the further the thread drifts from it's intended conversation - which may be their goal but it's not mine.

Except your thread title is wrong then because..

1. You claim that operations were suspended
2. You claim results gone from the original data.

Both of which are not backed up by your source material ..No big deal you want to turn this into a discussion about people who believe in the ME great but you should change the thread title then.

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
Results from the Large Hadron Collider show that a "bump" in the machine's data, previously rumoured to represent a new particle, has gone away.

So it was there at first, but now it is not there anymore. So how do you explain this?

Speaking to journalists in Chicago at the International Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP), Prof Charlton said it was a remarkable coincidence - but purely a coincidence - that two separate LHC detectors, Atlas and CMS, picked up matching "bumps".

"It just seems to be a statistical fluke, that the two experiments saw something at the same mass.

"Coincidences are always strange when they happen - but we've been looking very hard at our data to make sure we fully understand them, and we don't see anything in the new sample."

I see, so the "bump" was never there, it just happened to be that two seperate detectors both picked up matching bumps by mistake and it is a coincidence.

Coincidences are strange.

... Good catch.

The fact that tests showed the existence of data (from two different facilities) - that can't be reproduced now, should raise eyebrows in the scientific community. In fact I think it is... When I read the quotes given by the scientists they seem almost apologetic and baffled.

Did two facilities make the same mistake? Not likely - that kind of sloppy science wouldn't stay funded for long.

a reply to: tikbalang

The balance of the Universe, duality, Yin and Yang. What we send out, no matter the intent, will inevitably return to us in some way. Like a reflection in a warped mirror...appearing different, distorted in some ways...even completely alien to our perception, yet it is still the same exact image as it was to begin with.

On the premise that these people actually altered this reality, affecting the lives of millions of human beings and without their consent or knowledge, to attain a scientific leap forward, I would say the sudden disappearance of bumps in the exact same data from two different sources that served as a vector for that forward leap could very well be the equivalent of a Karmic bitchslap. And it would be well-deserved, too...if actually true.

a reply to: Pearj

The fact that tests showed the existence of data (from two different facilities) - that can't be reproduced now, should raise eyebrows in the scientific community. In fact I think it is... When I read the quotes given by the scientists they seem almost apologetic and baffled.

Also strange considering they have been hyping 2016 as the year of paradigm shifting discoveries and now it turns out the evidence they based this on was a "statistical fluke".

Seems like they're baffled indeed and the best excuse they can come up with is "coincidence".

a reply to: tigertatzen

Absolutely - there has to be positive and negative - or everything collapses. I doesn't matter what direction you come from - spiritual or scientific, it's a universal truth.

Assuming they caused the Mandela Effect; they definitely did affect my life. I had tears in my eyes when I saw the global map on the big screen, then confirmed it with the globe on my desk. I was becoming aware that I was experiencing something of miracle level magnitude.

That was on day one - a little over two weeks ago. Since then I've done a lot of research and am coping better now; in fact I'm excited at what's to come.

a reply to: Pearj

Apart from this has nothing to do with the fantasy called the Mandela effect and EVERYTHING to do with the way science is done.

Just because they thought they found something, doesn't mean they did. It needs to be tested over and over again. Those further tests showed that they were wrong.

It's simple science, not a made up "effect" so people can dismiss being fallible.

ETA: Also, why did you feel the need to LIE in your OP? The LHC isn't "suspended". There's nothing in the article about it. You made it up.

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: Pearj

Also strange considering they have been hyping 2016 as the year of paradigm shifting discoveries and now it turns out the evidence they based this on was a "statistical fluke".

Seems like they're baffled indeed and the best excuse they can come up with is "coincidence".

Funny how the "coincidence" of things that used to exist but don't anymore is a scientifically accepted response from the scientific community.

You would think scientific community wouldn't accept 'coincidence' - much less use it as an excuse. Yet there it is - as though science is now coming to grips?

Would you fund experiments where the people you pay say "Well, I don't know how that happened, must be coincidence!" Bull.

a reply to: Pearj

Yes, with that logic any result they ever produced could be a fluke.

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: Pearj

Yes, with that logic any result they ever produced could be a fluke.

And that's why science tests for results more than 2 or 3 times. It eliminates the "coincidence factor".

a reply to: TerryDon79

Makes you wonder why scientists hype a discovery if they know it might very well be a statistical fluke. Not very scientific.....

Btw, how many times did they test the new discovery? Why don't they explain how such a fluke was even possible. if they can't explain the fluke how do they know when something is a fluke and when it is legit? Maybe the latest result was a fluke.

a reply to: Pearj

You would think scientific community wouldn't accept 'coincidence' - much less use it as an excuse. Yet there it is - as though science is now coming to grips?

Science has never accepted the first results as that is the reason they run more than one experiment to try and replicate the results as they did here.

And after adding more data they found they didn't have the same results.

Would you fund experiments where the people you pay say "Well, I don't know how that happened, must be coincidence!" Bull.

Well in this case they need more data to find the answer...they don't just say we don't know how that happened and leave it at that. That is why they are still going through the large amount of data that they have.

It is, however, far too soon to shout “whale ahoy,” physicists both inside and outside CERN said, noting that the history of particle physics is rife with statistical flukes and anomalies that disappeared when more data was compiled.

A coincidence is the most probable explanation for the surprising bumps in data from the collider, physicists from the experiments cautioned, saying that a lot more data was needed and would in fact soon be available.

“I don’t think there is anyone around who thinks this is conclusive,” said Kyle Cranmer, a physicist from New York University who works on one of the CERN teams, known as Atlas. “But it would be huge if true,” he said, noting that many theorists had put their other work aside to study the new result.

www.nytimes.com...

originally posted by: TerryDon79

ETA: Also, why did you feel the need to LIE in your OP? The LHC isn't "suspended". There's nothing in the article about it. You made it up.

I have asked this question a few times so far , along with why is this post not in the HOAX bin or why the title has not been changed and so far no reply.

My guess is you will get the same to your question.

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: TerryDon79

Makes you wonder why scientists hype a discovery if they know it might very well be a statistical fluke. Not very scientific.....

Happens all the time with different things. Initial results always get hyped up. It's exciting. People want to shout about it.

Btw, how many times did they test the new discovery? Why don't they explain how such a fluke was even possible.

It doesn't say how many times they tested it. Just that 2 tests, done by 2 different teams, got the same result. Kind of like you and a friend rolling a dice and both of you getting a 1. It happens.

a reply to: opethPA

Some people just feel the need to exaggerate the truth, I guess. Kind of sums up the ME pretty well too.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

They don't that is why they do more than one test to try and make sure it wasn't just a coincidence...which is the reason you have the results showing it was a coincidence. Science has never accepted the first results as that is the reason they run more than one experiment to try and replicate the results as they did here. And after adding more data they found they didn't have the same results.

Oh look, tsurfer having trouble to understand the context again.

Speaking to journalists in Chicago at the International Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP), Prof Charlton said it was a remarkable coincidence - but purely a coincidence - that two separate LHC detectors, Atlas and CMS, picked up matching "bumps". "It just seems to be a statistical fluke, that the two experiments saw something at the same mass. "Coincidences are always strange when they happen - but we've been looking very hard at our data to make sure we fully understand them, and we don't see anything in the new sample."

He is clearly explaining the first matching results from seperate experiments as a "coincidence".

a reply to: TerryDon79

Happens all the time with different things. Initial results always get hyped up. It's exciting. People want to shout about it.

You were talking about how science should work. That's not scientific.

It doesn't say how many times they tested it. Just that 2 tests, done by 2 different teams, got the same result. Kind of like you and a friend rolling a dice and both of you getting a 1. It happens.

Simpleton example.

a reply to: TheMaxHeadroomIncident

No, it's not scientific. It's human nature. They're 2 different things, but you're trying to equate the 2 as the same.

And yes, it was a "simpleton example". It works in EXACTLY the same way because it describes coincidence.

a reply to: TheMaxHeadroomIncident

Btw, how many times did they test the new discovery? Why don't they explain how such a fluke was even possible. if they can't explain the fluke how do they know when something is a fluke and when it is legit? Maybe the latest result was a fluke

Enjoy...

cds.cern.ch...