Prove it - Mandela Effect

a reply to: swanne

I remember a few years ago no one even knew what the Mandela Effect was. Then, all of a sudden, people start talking about it. Coincidence? I don't think so! Definite proof that the Mandela Effect is real.

How could anyone "prove" the experience of another timeline
That would require access to the other timeline to prove anything
The Mandela effect can not be proved or disproved before LHC discover a way to peek into other dimensions

Prove an emotion. Your choice. Then prove that is how you feel.

-or-

Prove you love (your mother, your son, your daughter, Jesus, Allah, science, Star Trek) [any one or ALL if you are that good!]

You cannot prove an experience any more than you can prove 'love' or any other experience. All you can do spill ink (or electricity) about it and hope you are not showing signs of weakness of mind.

Sorry, that is about as good as it gets.

If I see one more thread about Ancient Mayans, oh wait--wrong thread.

The love-to-hate is just as prolific and bandwagon as the believers.

Two sides of the same coin

So far on this thread no one has shown a single scientific evidence that time travel is possible.

Therefore all those "emotion" and subjective arguments I have received are irrelevant. The scientific method is one of objectivity, at least ideally.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: swanne

I remember a few years ago no one even knew what the Mandela Effect was. Then, all of a sudden, people start talking about it. Coincidence? I don't think so! Definite proof that the Mandela Effect is real.

A few years ago the first Hobbit movie came out. Then all of a sudden people started talking about dragons.

That doesn't make dragons any more real.

Popularity of a proposition does not make the proposition true.

a reply to: swanne

Wait, dragons aren't real?

a reply to: swanne

Time travel is just one theory to what could cause Mandela Effect ( not even really time travel as someone has said already more time slip)
Many people are open to other causes and ideas even faulty memories.

If I used my time machine to appear in the background of one of your old photos would that prove mandela effect? Would you know it had changed or would that be how you've always seen it?

originally posted by: Spacespider
How could anyone "prove" the experience of another timeline
That would require access to the other timeline to prove anything
The Mandela effect can not be proved or disproved before LHC discover a way to peek into other dimensions

It's not the proving of another timeline. It's the slipping. One, there has to be a trigger. Two, a source of power to fuel the slip. Three, emissions and collateral effects.

Why do people always slip to the same relevant time? Why not 200 years forwards or backwards.

The clues of ME, if real, would lead to defining a real formula. It has not.

ME is the result of bad memory? Or the ridiculous amount of power and randomness of said time slips.

Wonder which is more likely?

originally posted by: LadyTrick
a reply to: swanne

Time travel is just one theory to what could cause Mandela Effect ( not even really time travel as someone has said already more time slip)
Many people are open to other causes and ideas even faulty memories.

If I used my time machine to appear in the background of one of your old photos would that prove mandela effect? Would you know it had changed or would that be how you've always seen it?

People have suggested mass reprogramming through pop culture media. Persons afflicted with ME didn't like the suggestion. See, people of ME are not saps, and too special to be programmed by suggestive programing. They are the ones that insist they have the intelligence and means to see the time slips.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Try Schumann resonance

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: swanne

Wait, dragons aren't real?

No.

That's a lizard mate.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

It's what makes us different. You don't need proof of this.
You have eyes but don't see, ears but don't hear.

Science has proven the existence by death.
They studied a dying person by taking their weight before and after they died. There was a minute change in weight.

"Of course, most spiritual people view the soul as emphatically more definitive than the scientific concept. It's considered the incorporeal essence of a person, and is said to be immortal and transcendent of material existence. But when scientists speak of the soul (if at all), it's usually in a materialistic context, or treated as a poetic synonym for the mind. Everything knowable about the "soul" can be learned by studying the functioning of the brain. In their view, neuroscience is the only branch of scientific study relevant to understanding the soul."

www.psychologytoday.com...

originally posted by: swanne
I am getting increasingly tired of this so-called " Mandela Effect". People who think that somehow they've traveled in time, to a different future than everyone else, instead of admitting that their memories aren't as sharp as they would've wanted.

Prove it to me - not with your subjective memories of past events, but with actual scientific evidences - prove it to me that Time travel is possible. Here, I even made a silly promise since I am quite confident that it won't be proven.

I know a thing or two about physics and time and alternative universes. Even if time travel could be possible, it would require you, my friend, to either a: reach Faster than Light speeds, or b: fall in a rotating black hole (with a ring Singularity).

Please, prove it to me that you've traveled in Time. Because so far I can't quite picture how you're traveling faster than light while waiting for your morning coffee, or the circumstances of you falling into a rotating black hole while walking on your way to work.

And in another alternate space loopy timeline you posted on this ATS thread exactly the same words.

Well, it seems to me that you are annoyed by one, singular "explanation" of the Mandela effect. Of course, if it is somehow an artifact of time travel, asking for proof may be a bit like asking for proof of the transistor in the 16th century.

In other words, its more than a little silly..

Personally, I am incredibly entertained by how annoyed so many people are by such things. Things that have no real impact, yet live rent free in so many minds. Blind reliance on the internet to shape reality (sources! links!), or define what is or is not possible, is sheer folly driven by nuanced narcissism.

Its like the more modern equivalent of the hammer and nail metaphor. Instead of everything looking like a nail, it has been replaced by links. I suppose when all one has is the internet, everything needs a link!

Its a bit tragic, I suppose, that our tools have supplanted our imagination and ability to think and explore for ourselves. Then again, tragedy is the anthem of humanity, so its fitting in a way.

Admittedly, the issue is probably my own naive notion that imaginative exploration is beneficial and good and that it is kept nicely grounded by those who are unable to entertain ideas without accepting them.

a reply to: Serdgiam

Its a bit tragic, I suppose, that our tools have supplanted our imagination and ability to think and explore for ourselves. Then again, tragedy is the anthem of humanity, so its fitting in a way.

It's actually quite the opposite with ME, and this is what I find tragic: ME proponents are NOT reasoning or exploring for themselves.

Even flat-earthers will try to use reason and find new evidences to support their claims.

But in the case of many ME proponents, they just assume that they've somehow slipped in another universe, they don't give any thoughts about the implications or logic behind such a claim, and some of them (when faced by the requirement of proof) say that ME is an "emotional feeling" and thus cannot assist any further investigation.

Nice gallifreyan avatar BTW!

My belief of the MA is that it isn't a valid pheonomenon, however I still read the threads and remain open to more persuasive information. I'm not required to hold this position due to being a part of ATS staff -- it's just what I think.

Since I've been a part of ATS, there have been other ideas that I was dubious of that I've since been convinced held water.

I don't think things like this can be proven nor disproven. Proof is more than evidence; proof involves measurement of variables, and there are no variables to be measured.

Until the Michelson-Morley experiment, Special Relativity, while be supported by vast reams of mathematical data, was not a fact.

I admit to having been tired of all some of the MA threads. What has been wearisome to me personally is not the plethora of threads, but what I perceive to be an acceptance of the phenomenon (by some) based upon fairly simple ideas. It smacks of confirmation bias sometimes.

Being a skeptic is not a bad thing because it involves mining data and reaching a conclusion. Being a skeptic who has no room for additional information -- that is to say, a person who is impervious to it -- is the antithesis of critical thinking, imo.

To KNOW something is a gift. Most of us keep on looking, and if we see a gem, we polish it, and hope there are more.