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.

 

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

page: 6
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy
It looks to me like this OP is a back door to another ME discussion, [sic] in general, as it has nothing to do with the LHC, or if it has, it must be the National Enquirer's version.


This is a front door to a discussion about the LHC (cern) and the Mandela Effect - not a back door - as both are in the title... Don't worry, no one's trying to trick you.

The National Enquirer would run an article about "scientific coincidences" - oops wait, it was the BBC. I mean, those people are so dumb.. ammirite?

[the op text] has nothing to do with the LHC, or if it has, it must be [dumb] - bandwagon much?

I have to ask, did you even read the BBC article, or the OP text? It's in the title, it's in the text, the article's linked and quoted.. I mean, you clicked on it.. you had to of read it at least a little bit. Come on man, think for yourself.

.




posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: smurfy

No they had 2 indentical previous results they couldn't recreate and have no explanation for why they couldn't.


I don't think they were identical at all, the second runs by Atlas and CMS we were told at the time had less data, and it was actually accepted then that there was that need to produce more data in 2016, and since May they were going a dinger to collect more data, but in 2015, at that time the same measure of language was used as for the WOW! signal as well...."It was to good to be true" However, I'm sure they did indulge themselves in the meantime with 'What if' and now't wrong with that either.


edit on 6-8-2016 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy




I don't think they were identical at all


Based on what? Not on the words of this CERN scientist, that's for sure.


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.



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Using the source you listed can you backup your claim that operations at CERN were suspended because the next run of tests showed different results or where does it say that data was previously there is now gone.

You want to make a logic jump and attribute that to a ME great, hell there are people that believe the Earth is flat , more power to you.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim.
edit on 6-8-2016 by opethPA because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
dragonridr: "There are people that have an overwhelming need to corect stupidity ."


SeaWorthy: "(you spelled correct wrong)"


Funny on multiple levels - unless he spelled it correctly in his 'time line'. (ME Gone Wild)



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pearj

originally posted by: smurfy
It looks to me like this OP is a back door to another ME discussion, [sic] in general, as it has nothing to do with the LHC, or if it has, it must be the National Enquirer's version.


This is a front door to a discussion about the LHC (cern) and the Mandela Effect - not a back door - as both are in the title... Don't worry, no one's trying to trick you.

The National Enquirer would run an article about "scientific coincidences" - oops wait, it was the BBC. I mean, those people are so dumb.. ammirite?

[the op text] has nothing to do with the LHC, or if it has, it must be [dumb] - bandwagon much?

I have to ask, did you even read the BBC article, or the OP text? It's in the title, it's in the text, the article's linked and quoted.. I mean, you clicked on it.. you had to of read it at least a little bit. Come on man, think for yourself.

.


www.sciencenews.org...

home.cern...
"The amount of data on which the two experiments analysis are based is still limited-around eight times less than that collected during Run 1"

www.symmetrymagazine.org...

"Such a bump in the data could indicate the existence of a new particle. The Higgs boson, for instance, materialized in the LHC data as an excess of photon pairs with a combined mass of 125 billion electronvolts. However, with only a handful of data points, the two experiments could not discern whether that was the case or if it were the result of normal statistical variance."

Thing is, as a non-scientist even I can understand what they are saying from the get go, (that's if you bother to read all the links) they needed much more data, and still more. They didn't lose anything, I suppose if you would ask them, it would be classed as a statistical anomaly. What it does mean though, is that they know they will have to do much more to find what they are looking for...the whole basis of their rationale.



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

Then how did they find an indication of existence the first two times with "less" - that can't be duplicated now?

Also, are you saying the same verbiage used to describe the WOW signal is the same used to describe the possibility of a new particle? "To good to be true"

Do you think the possibility of a new particle is "to good to be true"?
edit on 6-8-2016 by Pearj because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Will they be cranking up the power on this next cycle on the 14th of this month ? That reminds me, our electricity bill meter reader is due that day...



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: smurfy

No they had 2 indentical previous results they couldn't recreate and have no explanation for why they couldn't.


I see part of your confusion it wasnt two incidents it was one recorded by two diffrent instruments. This data was from 2012. They actually manually review data and discovered an anomaly. As they continued to sift through data it didn't occur again. In order to prove it's a new hadron they would need to be able to replicate it.

As far as the LHC opening a door it's nonsense you produce more energy than the colisions that occur. And since you aren't opening doors to other dimensions I'm pretty sure it can't happen.



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Pearj

Just sounds like they jumped on their high horse before the horse was even present. Sometimes scientists like to be the first to say I did it and sometimes do so before their own evidence is present, so to let those they tell down slowly. They just push it aside. Which is fine by me, people make mistakes. It is not mass misunderstanding, its just groups of very busy men and women sending out information before its presented.



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: tikbalang
a reply to: gortex

When humans tries to play God, they are most likely to fail..


...but only if you're Christian (or ancient Greek/Roman) and from Europe/America.

If you were Chinese, you would know that the reward for "playing god" is that the gods welcome you into heaven (ala Monkey and the Sages and so forth.) Ancient Egyptians had no such belief (powerful magicians were, however, governed by the law of Ma'at) nor did the ancient Celts or Vikings have such a belief. Exemplary Buddhists also become "gods" (not exactly, but it's the best I can do without a long discussion of Buddhist beliefs and terminology)



posted on Aug, 6 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackProject
a reply to: Pearj

Just sounds like they jumped on their high horse before the horse was even present. Sometimes scientists like to be the first to say I did it and sometimes do so before their own evidence is present, so to let those they tell down slowly.


Actually, if they took that route they'd be out of a job very quickly. Directors allow only a small number of "gosh, I'll take that back"s before someone is invited to go find a job elsewhere.

Now... sometimes universities will promote strange grad student projects, but that's a whole different thing. Research labs are not very quick to come out with things.

I volunteer for a research lab (dinosaurs, paleontology) and we have had to sit on announcements of new species until the paper and evidence made its way through a number of reviews and international presentations. If we'd rushed into publication without that, the museum would have faced a lot of controversy - not from the public, but they'd have taken heat from every vertebrate paleontologist within 3,000 miles.

Same with other fields. If you rush in half-baked, you will be nailed and hung up to dry by everyone in the field and your lab will lose credibility and funding.



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 01:47 AM
link   
The "old bumps" did not disappear. They didn't forget them.. they didn't cease to be. It was an anomaly (rare statistical coincidence really), and it simply hasn't resurfaced. That is quite different than the other theorized effects people have reported. It's not the same at all. It would be the same if CERN scientists said "Huh? What bumps? There were never any bumps! Possible particles? What are you talking about?!"

So.. no. Also you might ask yourself why only (for the most part), only very minor things are ever subjected to this. Those items being things that could easily be confused for something else. No major political, economy, theological, etc. items that are discovered (other than Mandela, and a televangelist). No.. instead we have names of cereal, names of a children's book, of movies and lines within movies, adult diapers.. and so on. Now.. if a fair slice of the population of the world suddenly doesn't ever remember Obama becoming President.. now we can talk.

I find the phenomena interesting, but attribute it to memory (or probably more often, lack of attention to detail). When a major event turned out completely different for large groups of people, perhaps then we can talk.



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 02:58 AM
link   
a reply to: fleabit




That is quite different than the other theorized effects people have reported. It's not the same at all. It would be the same if CERN scientists said "Huh? What bumps? There were never any bumps! Possible particles? What are you talking about?!"


What they are saying is "last times we did this we saw the bumps and now they aren't there at all", and this is somewhat comparable to ME experiences.

They obviously tried to recreate the results by doing the same thing but it doesn't work. So something seems to have changed.


In any case it is ironic.



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




I see part of your confusion it wasnt two incidents it was one recorded by two different instruments.


My confusion?


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.



And from Smurfy's source,


What made this particular bump interesting is that both experiments saw the same anomaly in completely independent data sets, says Wade Fisher, a physicist at Michigan State University.






edit on 7-8-2016 by TheMaxHeadroomIncident because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 03:35 AM
link   
a reply to: smurfy


However, with only a handful of data points, the two experiments could not discern whether that was the case or if it were the result of normal statistical variance.


"Normal statistical variance"?


“It’s like finding your car parked next to an identical copy,” he says. “That’s a very rare experience, but it doesn’t mean that you’ve discovered something new about the world.



So what is it? Normal or very rare?



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit
The "old bumps" did not disappear. They didn't forget them.. they didn't cease to be. It was an anomaly (rare statistical coincidence really), and it simply hasn't resurfaced. That is quite different than the other theorized effects people have reported. It's not the same at all. It would be the same if CERN scientists said "Huh? What bumps? There were never any bumps! Possible particles? What are you talking about?!"

So.. no. Also you might ask yourself why only (for the most part), only very minor things are ever subjected to this. Those items being things that could easily be confused for something else. No major political, economy, theological, etc. items that are discovered (other than Mandela, and a televangelist). No.. instead we have names of cereal, names of a children's book, of movies and lines within movies, adult diapers.. and so on. Now.. if a fair slice of the population of the world suddenly doesn't ever remember Obama becoming President.. now we can talk.

I find the phenomena interesting, but attribute it to memory (or probably more often, lack of attention to detail). When a major event turned out completely different for large groups of people, perhaps then we can talk.




Can we talk?

The bump did disappear.

My sneezes are minor. Publications and movies are not. Nobody spent millions on my sneeze, but they did on Star Wars.

Nobody remembers me sneezing a few minutes ago, but they remember the book they read as a kid.

Slogans for brands and the brands themselves become a part of culture (if they're lasting). They resurface in art, movies, literature. In fact they become a part of the familiarity (and in some was the definition) of a culture.

The JFK assassination tape changed dramatically for me. A death is not minor.

Tienanmen Sq was not a small thing - a person died (not here though).

Continents are not small things.

...And of course you have the Bible. The widest spread, most read book in the world. Studied by believers and non-believers alike. Not a small thing.

In fact - it was only iconic things that changed. Iconic things are not small things.

.
edit on 7-8-2016 by Pearj because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Why do people think that the LHC can alter time, create black holes and basically act as all-purpose plot device in any conspiracy theory?
edit on 7-8-2016 by Vasteel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Pearj




This topic takes the position that the Mandela Effect is real, then goes forward from there.


and you wonder why your thread is in SkunkWorks?




posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: InhaleExhale

So what?



new topics




 
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join