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

Still looking for the OP to backup his claims of the following from the source he posted...

"apparently not present in the previous data now"
"Due to this, the scientists at the LHC have suspended operations - they had intended to ramp up power with this cycle. "

Since the first statement is a lie the second one can't be truthful but lets just ignore the first statement for a second..
Where are either of your claims listed?

What you are doing is not much different then people that blindly believe in religion or numerology or some other new agey thing do to make their argument, taking a statement and using it out of context or incorrectly to make your case.

This is the closest to your first claim: "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."

You are trying to read that as "Data previously shown in a report is now removed from that report thus a ME" and that isnt what is said at all. The article says that in subsequent tests the results that initially were shown are not there.

I cant find anything close to your claim that operations have been suspended due to the alleged ME you are claiming.

Nothing wrong with wanting to believe in the ME. Just because you do doesnt mean I have to and just because I dont doesnt mean you have to follow along. Make a post about the ME then, dont take the disingenuous approach of twisting an article to try and prove your point.

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: InhaleExhale

So what?

Read the second post from OP, then you might "what".

Its on page 1

a reply to: InhaleExhale

So what if it is Skunk Works? It is not an insult.

I don't know what you are trying to say with the post you are refering to.

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.

I don't think they are the same in any way. The effects of ME in an example: 100 million people asked about the name of a book - 80 million remember it one way, 20 million remember it as another. Or 15 million believe event X to have occurred, and 85 million never remembered it like that.

This is nothing like that, whatsoever. They had a reading on equipment. The readings are in the books.. no one disputes that they occurred, and everyone remembers the result. Now they can't replicate that test. How is that similar? I don't see it.

Can we talk?

The bump did disappear.

What did you mean by that? The article never talked about existing data disappearing. ME would be the data ACTUALLY disappearing from already completed tests. Where some people remembering the test.. and the result, but they can't find any record of that test. That is not the case here. The tests occurred, were recorded, and remembered. Now they simply can't replicate the results. That is in no way similar to what people see with ME.

a reply to: fleabit

This is nothing like that, whatsoever. They had a reading on equipment. The readings are in the books.. no one disputes that they occurred, and everyone remembers the result. Now they can't replicate that test. How is that similar? I don't see it.

It is similar in the sense that the reality they detected doesn't seem to be the reality now.

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: fleabit

This is nothing like that, whatsoever. They had a reading on equipment. The readings are in the books.. no one disputes that they occurred, and everyone remembers the result. Now they can't replicate that test. How is that similar? I don't see it.

It is similar in the sense that the reality they detected doesn't seem to be the reality now.

We are talking physics.. not an event, name, or something along those lines. Unless the laws of physics are now game to ME, I again don't see a correlation. They even say in the article that these sorts of results (or lack of follow-up results) are common. They think they have something.. it turns out to be nothing. I dare say it probably happens VERY regularly in scientific studies. False positives in science are not ME.

After reading the OPs comment:

This article explains that the data that seemed to indicate the possibility of a 'new' particle is no more; apparently not present in the previous data now.

I think they misunderstood the article and made a post here. It's clear they thought that the data disappeared. It did not. It simply did not occur again.

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.

Believe when I say the topic interests me.. I do think it's fascinating. I just think there needs to be a lot more proof before claiming ME is more than just faulty memories. I believe that the Internet and the ability to easily query millions of people instantly on a topic is why this is rearing its head. Do you think every human is 100% correct in all their recollections from life? I don't. I think unless someone has a photographic memory, it's pretty much guaranteed that people have plenty of misread, misunderstood, incorrect data in their brain. When you query a large % of folks, the ones that misremember will stand out.

And consider the things they are not remembering correctly. Berenstein / stain? Stein is a much more common way to spell a last name.. and it's no surprise that people's minds simply read it as such, especially if not paying close attention. Depend/depends? How many people actually go to the store and look for / buy depend adult diapers? So again, no surprise when a lot of people thought it was depends.. simply because you hear it in jokes and such all the time.. and no one gets it right. I don't think someone altered a timeline where another thought adding an S to their product name was a better idea.

How about "Life was like a box of chocolates." You read it.. it sounds wrong. Like IS like a box of chocolates reads better. But.. if you actually go listen to the clip in the movie, it actually sounds more correct when he sais "Grandma always said, life was like a box of chocolates." Again.. we remember what our brain seems to think is more correct. Same with "Interview with the vampire." Doesn't sound right.. with a vampire sounds more correct.. to our brain. But that was not name of Anne Rice's book. For a book title, Interview with the Vampire actually sounds better to your mind. In a movie.. not so much. But it was based on the book.

Also with supposed infinite timelines, why are we only getting two here? Why not people remembering stuff a third way.. fourth way? I will say the theory someone proposed that the Google searches "switched" primarily to the "accepted" version of the ME subjects about the time CERN was switched on is interesting, and I'm going to research that a bit more.

a reply to: TheMaxHeadroomIncident

So what if it is Skunk Works? It is not an insult.

Who ever said it was?

The OP was mad that ATS places these threads in skunkworks.

I quoted what I was replying to, maybe you should pay attention a little better and understand the context of whats being written before replying

I don't know what you are trying to say with the post you are refering to.

If it has no relevance to you why reply?

Read the thread, the thread authors 2nd post on page 1 is what I am referring to when I initially replied.

No more food for you

a reply to: InhaleExhale

The post I responded to was in response to the OP which didn't contain what you are refering to.

a reply to: Pearj

Since this was your first thread in 10 years you get a flag.

I can't really comment on the ME.
I will say the LHC is a huge waste of desperately needed money that could have been used far more practicably.

a reply to: fleabit

Good point.

Here's a decent wiki
memory errors

LHC, Mandela effect, mandatory Lockheed assignment?

There must be a Monty Python version of this in a parallel universe somewhere.

originally posted by: Pearj
So I paraphrased the article just like standard news agencies do - I guess I could of said "LHC Test Suspended", so I'll give you that.

However - the LHC was supposed to be brought on-line and it wasn't, therefore LHC suspended. Suspended means halted btw.

We note that you fail to rectify your other fabrication - that the original data has "disappeared."

1) Operations at Cern, specifically the LHC, have not been suspended.

2) The original data has not disappeared.

Rail all you want against skeptics, you are the one that stepped in it here.

Harte

originally posted by: [post=21099788]Pearj

Do you think LHC scientists are now experiencing the Mandela Effect - being sure of data that doesn't exist now? If so, the irony is astounding.

The data is still there; it never disappeared. Specifically, the previous results of the experiment STILL EXISTS -- results that show bump in the data that potentially could have indicated the existence of a new particle. That original data still shows the bump.

What happened was that when they tried replicating the experiment, they got different data results than they did the first time. This is quite common in science, which is why an experiment may need to be run many times in order to make sure you can replicate the results, to help ensure that some unknown variable isn't skewing the results.

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.

The two main points you made in the OP were both false statements, so it really isn't that hard to debunk.

...And other members pointing out the false premises on which your entire argument is based is not "the thread drifting from it's intended conversation".

And now a quick message from our sponsors:



Neither for our planet nor this bloody subject, it would seem.

If this picture disappears at some time in the future it isn't because I removed it or anything, nah...

a reply to: fleabit

We are talking physics.. not an event, name, or something along those lines. Unless the laws of physics are now game to ME, I again don't see a correlation.

I am not saying this is due to the ME but the correlation is that one could say that it was because of the ME that these previous results can't be reproduced, because something has changed.

All I said is that there was some irony there after the accusations that CERN has something to do with the ME.

I think they misunderstood the article and made a post here. It's clear they thought that the data disappeared. It did not. It simply did not occur again.

I am aware of this. The point is that they have gone for the "remarkable coincidence" explanation for the two indentical previous results because they can't come up with a real explanation. This bothers me a bit.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: GoShredAK

How did you know? Did "they" tell you?

A quick look into the quantum realm reveals as much. However, there is also a reality where you just love the ME.......crazy place it is......

a reply to: GoShredAK

The "other me" must be a complete nutcase then lol

fleabit
I think they misunderstood the article and made a post here. It's clear they thought that the data disappeared. It did not. It simply did not occur again.

TheMaxHeadroomIncidentTheMaxHeadroomIncident
I am aware of this. The point is that they have gone for the "remarkable coincidence" explanation for the two indentical previous results because they can't come up with a real explanation. This bothers me a bit.

It could be that the experiment's set-up had flaws, so the results were real (hence both detectors seeing the bump in tha data), but those "real" results could have been due to the flawed set-up or flawed methodology, instead of being due to a yet-unknown particle.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

It could be that the experiment's set-up had flaws, so the results were real (hence both detectors seeing the bump in tha data), but those "real" results could have been due to the flawed set-up or flawed methodology, instead of being due to a yet-unknown particle

But they didn't even mention these options, they said it simply was a "very rare" and "remarkable coincidence", implying they could not find a cause like a flaw in the setup. Had they mentioned those possibilities then I wouldn't have found it strange.