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: 8
28
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
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.

I think they are still in some ways trying to figure out where the bump may have come from.

Either way, even the scientists who were giddy about the potential that they found a new particle were also cautious at the time that the "bump" could be an anomaly. It's not like they were 100% floored by the results NOT showing the bump on subsequent experiments, because they knew it was possible that the first results may have included a statistical anomaly.

Statistical anomalies in experimentation could be caused by unintended outside variables, but it's possible that the unintended variable might never be figured out. The answer to "why did the experiment result in incorrect data" may never be found, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't incorrect data.


edit on 2016-8-8 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People




I think they are still in some ways trying to figure out where the bump may have come from.


In any case, they told the public that it was an identical "statistical anamoly" the occurance of which was "a remarkable coincidence".

If they are actually still figuring it out then they lied.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: opethPA
Still looking for the OP to backup his claims [..]


You don't have to wait, I already gave you a response the first time you asked:
Answer from the first time you asked



originally posted by: opethPA
"apparently not present in the previous data now"
the first statement is a lie[..]


Lie? Direct your redundancy to the BBC, they're the ones that said:


New particle hopes fade as LHC data 'bump' disappears


This of course applies to the many who've said "the bump did not disappear!!" You should let the BBC know there's something wrong with their title.


originally posted by: opethPA
Due to this, the scientists at the LHC have suspended operations [..]


Again, I've already explained this - but I'll try in more depth for you? Again?

My understanding is that they had tests lined out based on the 'bump' they saw before - which they can't do now, because the 'bump' isn't there.
Here are quotes from the BBC article:

imminent discovery of a particle [..] have been put on hold


the revamped LHC [..] was set to collect data


Additionally, a Reddit user provided a link showing anticipated operations not running (in response to this topic I raised on Reddit). You can't see the post because the sub-reddit hoster censors CERN / LHC topics - so the topic is "locked" and not visible. I can see it because it's in my list of comments and replies..

The user is "ME_Spotted" (to give credit where credit's due). Here's his statement and an interesting link:

meltronx.com... Yep you are right they have stopped their operations.


The page linked showed no activity when I opened it the first time - and when I opened it before making the OP here. It may show activity in the future because it's live.

Note: I didn't include that in my original explanation to you (that you didn't read) because you can't log into Reddit yourself and read it. Also, if you don't like that website, let the creator know - not me.

If you don't like my interpretation of the information, simply say so - you don't have to call me a liar.

..But maybe you do? It's obvious you're shouting "Liar!" in hopes it will dissuade others - which of course makes me not want to reply to you; doing so seems 'cheap' or 'dirty' thereby not giving the phenomena the level of credit it deserves.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit
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.


There were books called The Berienstien Bears. The title was on the books, there is 'residual' data showing it, and many remember it. Now it's gone. Hows that not similar? Can you see it now?



(Remember, this isn't a topic about 'residual' information. I already know you think it's a spelling error. If I have to give the deffinition of the Mandela Effect before each statement then we've sunk to the level of Feminist videos - because 2016.)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People




I think they are still in some ways trying to figure out where the bump may have come from.


In any case, they told the public that it was an identical "statistical anamoly" the occurance of which was "a remarkable coincidence".

If they are actually still figuring it out then they lied.


Just because they have yet to figure out why they got seemingly anomalous results is not the same as "lying".

Perhaps they are no longer actively pursuing an investigation into why they got the bump, but that doesn't mean that the people who set up the experiment aren't still racking there brains over what might have given them those seemingly anomalous results. It's only normal (at least in the back of your mind) to keep wondering about what could have caused it.

Again, these sorts of anomalous results do occasionally happen, but one of the LAST "reasons" I would consider for the anomalous results is that somehow since the test was first run, the nature of the universe changed so much that a particle that existed a few months ago no longer exists; there are other more likely reasons than "CERN changed the physics of the universe".



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit
[The bump did disappear.]
What did you mean by that? The article never talked about existing data disappearing.


Here's the BBC's article title - again:

New particle hopes fade as LHC data 'bump' disappears


If you disagree with their title, you'll have to take it up with them (not me, obviously).

Here is the authors Twitter. YOU SHOULD LET HIM KNOW the data did not disappear:
Pallab's Twitter

More directly, you should take it up with Pallab's boss.


Contact BBC News online - help, feedback and complaints
To report factual or grammatical issues with our online stories, please visit this page


---

I just thought of this - maybe it's the scientists you disagree with?

Again, you'll have to direct your version to them; not me. They are quoted as saying:



a "bump" in the machine's data, previously rumoured to represent a new particle, has gone away.

But in the [latest results] we see no sign of a bump, there's nothing.

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

we've been looking very hard at our data [..] and we don't see anything in the new sample."

So when they saw that the bump had gone... they looked devastated

every time we look and we don't find any obvious sign of it then it becomes a little less plausible



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   

edit on 8/8/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

But you have to admit that there are 3 or so qoutes in the article that do read like that.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Woohoo! I got a response from Harte - and gortex! (I can't deny that makes me giddy.)

That must mean we're on to something - but we need Oberg and Phage to also call me a liar, to make it official (that this subject requires attention).



originally posted by: Harte
We note that you fail to rectify your other fabrication - that the original data has "disappeared."


We're noting you didn't read the BBC article..


New particle hopes fade as LHC data 'bump' disappears




originally posted by: Harte
Rail all you want against skeptics, you are the one that stepped in it here.


No Harte - I'm the one that put on galoshes before "stepping in it".

Doesn't that imply I knew there would be a flood of people shouting "Sorcery!"?

I specifically asked for civil discourse in advance, and have avoided railing skeptics - you are the one that ignored that.

Pearj



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Pearj

Got it..

So you changed the wording of what the article said but want to pass that off as your interpretation of what the article said because this (what you said) "apparently not present in the previous data now" is nowhere close to this from the source material "New particle hopes fade as LHC data 'bump' disappears"

One is implying that previously documented data is no longer in that previous documentation
The other is stating that a previous stated result is no longer able to be reproduced.

That is a good numerology or really making your case for anything new agey tactic. Modify the info to tell the story you trying to sell.





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



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pearj

originally posted by: opethPA
Still looking for the OP to backup his claims [..]


You don't have to wait, I already gave you a response the first time you asked:
Answer from the first time you asked

Semantic dance and not a very good one.
And only half an answer, if any, as I pointed out.
We note that you had to edit opethPA's statement, or it would show that you actually have not responded to it.

Harte



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pearj

originally posted by: fleabit
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.


There were books called The Berienstien Bears. The title was on the books, there is 'residual' data showing it, and many remember it. Now it's gone. Hows that not similar? Can you see it now


No.. I still don't see it. The only residual data as you call it, are searches by people who thought the title was spelled one way. Saying there is residual data as well as people who remember it is redundantly silly. The residiual data ARE the people who remembered it another way. There is not multiple sources of data. There are not photos, or reviews of the books with the other spelling, and so on. Just people remembering it one way.. and doing Google searches for that spelling. A single (and faulty) source of data.. people's memories.

Versus a scientic test (ignore it was a CERN test.. this could have been any scientific study), that produced an interesting result. They then realized later it was not pointing to the result they thought it might be proving. Something that is common as dirt in scientific studies.

As far as the actual test being ME as someone claimed, from the article:

"The experiment wore on and the bump disappeared. Irregularities like this come and go in particle physics, so it didn't come as a huge surprise to the scientists, but there was obvious disappointment."

So.. not a huge surprise.. happens in particle physics.. but this somehow points to ME? I don't think so.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Why does it have to be mandela effect?

Why can't it be a lie by a charltan, pun intended.

A cover up, an "oopsy, public doesn't need to know", kind of thing?

Seems sketchy :/

Eta - wish I would of read the replies before posting, I feel silly now.. I should scrub this, but I'll leave it there to remind myself not to take an OP at face value while working.
edit on 8-8-2016 by Elementalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: Pearj

I think you've got a great outlook on things. My initial reaction to the changes was mostly anger...I've been experiencing other things too, for a long time, and this was just sort of the icing on the cake.

Lately, however, I have had profound cause to come to believe that what you are saying is quite accurate. In the same way that opening such doors can have a negative effect, so can it have the exact opposite. And it has...even miraculously so...in my personal world.

Perhaps they were not meant to keep that data, because they showed themselves to be willing to disregard the dangers inherent in their quest for advancement. And perhaps, by doing so, they inadvertently gave humanity a way to make a better future...releasing energy that is wholly positive, righting the imbalance. That would also be Karma.




Love all you airy fairy "life is just a uniforms dream and photons are individual people from past dreams" folk.

You really have no clue about what goes on at the LHC. Do you know what a hadron is? Yet you all see fit to spout gibberish in order to explain perfectly normal scientific method/outcomes/mistakes etc...


And then call us shills when we try to point out the truth.

Ridiculous. Go back to your dream world. Let the real men and women keep working on improving your lives,

And before any of,you ask, PET scans for cancer and MRI machines. 2 direct things that have come from particle physics. The are many more.


Get a clue. Grow up.
edit on 8-8-2016 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasteel
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?


What LHC?

Never heard of it.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   
8 pages later....

Poor choice of wording on the OP title with a poor argument and even worse edits to exclude naysayers.

The Mandela Effect is not real.

I agree with both of those statements.

Now, which one of you snowflakes needs a safe zone to relax in and shield yourselves from us evil naysayers?



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Rapha




Then everyone was shifted to a parallel version of earth


If we were shifted to a parallel dimension why isn't there 2 of me sitting on my couch?



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 03:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: imsoconfused
If we were shifted to a parallel dimension why isn't there 2 of me sitting on my couch?

i see it more like a spiritual swap.

Imagine there is a real nasty version of yourself in an alternate reality running parallel to this one.

The scientists at CERN, while playing with 'strange-lets', notice in horror, that strange-lets defy regular physics and transform into nano black holes sucking everything in whilst sinking to the center of the Earth.

Then the evil version of you gets shifted to the imploding world and thinks 'oh sht, it looks like i am about to face judgement'. Your current better spiritual version shifts into that alternate world meat-suit which is the one you are in now.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Pearj

Yes it didn't appear in the new data that they just started going through...your source doesn't say it disappeared from the old data altogether that is your lie not theirs.

It has been shown time and time again that the data still exists...so quit trying to push your lie as the bump is still on the previous data it just isn't there as new data is examined.

So quit trying to push this off on the BBC as it is you who made the big mistake in understanding what your reading.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: opethPA
So you changed the wording [to] "apparently not present in the previous data now" [which is] nowhere close


I posted some of the article, gave a link to the full article, and gave my interpretation of the info in the article.

Isn't that what we're supposed to do?

The article line that correlates to the my statement is the first line of the external text I gave in the OP.

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.


Which is how I came to say:

apparently not present in the previous data now



That should clear it up for you - but it won't. You'll fall back to interpretation...

..this is the song that never ends.. it just goes on and on my friend.




top topics



 
28
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join