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

originally posted by: Pearj

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.

Except what you posted doesn't in any way say its not present in the previous data what it says is the result cant be duplicated because that result has gone away.

it's okay, you want to tie this into an ME, have at it.

Has anyone noticed skeptic carpet-bombing stops around page 8 or 9?

It depends on the subject, but it's pretty standard from most. Lets see what we get...

originally posted by: Harte
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.

You got a complete answer with facts backed up by the BBC article.

We note you're good at forcing your opinion, but not good at convincing myself and the others that starred and flagged this.

Pearj

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Love all you airy fairy "life is just a uniforms dream and photons are individual people from past dreams" folk. [..]
Get a clue. Grow up.

Aren't you posting on a forum where a lot of folks lean metaphysical?

You should know by now not everyone thinks the same as you. Be nice kiddo (get a clue, grow up).

originally posted by: opethPA
it's okay, you want to tie this into an ME, have at it.

I already did - without your permission of course.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
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.

If they run the old test [data] again, is the bump produced?

I answered your bs offensive redundant question - now you gotta answer mine.

a reply to: Pearj

No we are just letting you bury yourself.

You seem to have a hard time understanding what people are saying...no the bump was not there after more data was examined...you don't try and rerun experiments with old data after new data shows something different.

That is why they ran more to try and replicate it but it didn't happen...what is it you don't understand about that.

Obviously you didn't understand it which is why I believe you won't understand this one either.

originally posted by: Pearj
Has anyone noticed skeptic carpet-bombing stops around page 8 or 9?

It depends on the subject, but it's pretty standard from most. Lets see what we get...

I know right..how dare people call you out on the inaccuracies you posted to try and tie this into a ME.

ATTENTION -

Knock off the tit for tat and personal insults! Anymore WILL result in Posting Bans.

The topic is not each other, period!

Do not reply to this post.

Behave,
please.

It is exhausting and frustrating for members having to read tit for tat instead of intelligent debate.

ATS staff.

a reply to: Pearj

Context is key.

You keep going back to this one sentence in the article in which the article writer states:

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.

...But you fail to point out this quote just four sentences later by one of the LHC scientists who states:

"There was a lot of excitement when we started to collect data. But in the [latest results] we see no sign of a bump, there's nothing."

Going by the context of the entire article (not just a snippet of the article that suits your argument), it is clear that the article did NOT say that the previous data once showed a bump, but that bump is now gone from the previous data. What the article does say is that SUBSEQUENT sets of data from SUBSEQUENT experiments do not show the bump that the original set of data showed.

If all we are talking about here is that two sets of data (two sets of data that both still exist today and can be studied today) show two different results, then that really isn't the Mandela Effect.

The only way you can tie the Mandela Effect into this is if the print out of the data from the original experiment mysteriously no longer shows a bump that was once there when that print out was looked at previously. However, that's not what the article says happened.

Maybe one snippet of the article taken out of context could "maybe sort of" imply that if you really were inclined to ignore the rest of the article, but that's the danger of taking things out of context; context is key.

Nm.

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

If all we are talking about here is that two sets of data (two sets of data that both still exist today and can be studied today) show two different results, then that really isn't the Mandela Effect.

Maybe we all jumped to a timeline in which a bump doesn't appear when scientists run such an experiment.......

So the physics of the universe changed? Are you implying that the particle that did exist when they ran the experiment the first time no longer exists? As if the LHC wiped the particle from existence?

What does the absence of that particle from the physics of the universe mean to how the universe works?

When did this change occur? Did the LHC somehow go back in time a messed with the way the universe was born in order to make this particle no longer exist? If so, I find it odd that the only difference we can notice is that the particle no longer shows up when the experiment is run, so it seems the universe doesn't care about that particle.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

No, I don't think physics changed - at least I'm not aware of a change. I think you're assuming, and I think you're going on about something the article and I never said.

In fact, in relation to physics, your question and CERN..

It would seem anyone who understands Quantum Mechanics and M Theory would be open to the possibility of multiple dimensions / universes, and that they could collide - the effects of which are not known, but could lend themselves to the ME causality.

The point is openness to ME (even if you aren't experiencing it) based on an understanding of a scientific principal.

originally posted by: Pearj
Has anyone noticed skeptic carpet-bombing stops around page 8 or 9?

It depends on the subject, but it's pretty standard from most. Lets see what we get...

originally posted by: Harte
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.

You got a complete answer with facts backed up by the BBC article.

Actually, no.
I did get an answer eventually though. In one of your subsequent posts where you halfway explained it as you having misunderstood what you read, so it's fine.

Harte

a reply to: Pearj

Then please explain how you think the difference between the two resultant data sets is somehow associated with ME.

Or, if you aren't saying that ME is what caused the data to be different from one test to the next, then what do YOU think caused the data to differ?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

How it's a ME has already been explained. Please read previous posts.