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

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

What page are you refering tsurfer?

a reply to: TheMaxHeadroomIncident

I expected to see South America where it was, and now it's not there. So to use their language, this statement is true:

"It just seems to be a statistical fluke, that the South American Landmass was in one position on two maps and is no longer in the same position. Coincidences are always strange when they happen - but I've been looking very hard at my maps to make sure I'm not going crazy, yet they continue to not be where I expected them based off the sample the day before."

If they can say it so can I. It correctly implies that the landmass was in a different position before.

a reply to: Pearj

Wow you need to stay away from particle physics your clueless. No Data is missing the LHC didn't suspend anything. And finally how can scientists experience an effect that doesn't exist there is no mendela ecfect.

For the LHC they were reviewing data from 2012 actually and noticed what is referred to as a bump. Mean I ng they spotted a pair of photons that didn't behave like the others. This is called a bumb statiscally they happen. Photons do indeed pop in to existence won't go into why. But if the experiment is run over and over and we discover a new particle we will always get thr same results. What they saw was two spin one photons. This means it woild have been a boson with a mass of 750 gev. But when they continued to go through the data it turned out that was the only time it was seen. And that means it's a random fluctuation.

So please explain what disapeared?? And how thus relates to bad memory of people who think they remember something difrent? My favorite was the heart moved I love that one I laughed. The easiest way to debunk that is ask people did they have CPR in there timeline?? Because if thr heart was where they believe it was you can't perform CPR and more than likely Kill someone trying to.

a reply to: Pearj

Care to explain the whole suspended lie?

If the op dosent this should be dumped in the hoax or lol bin.

a reply to: Pearj

Have you got any DATA that says that South America was in 2 different places?

No?

Have you got any DATA that can be checked over to verify that South America was in any other location?

No?

Then it's not the same.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Pearj

Care to explain the whole suspended lie?

If the op dosent this should be dumped in the hoax or lol bin.

That or the thread title alone is enough to get in moved to the HOAX bin ..

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Pearj

Care to explain the whole suspended lie?

If the op dosent this should be dumped in the hoax or lol bin.

Agreed. It was a blatant lie, and it deserves to be treated as such and moved to the hoax bin.

a reply to: TerryDon79

No, it's not scientific. It's human nature.

They obviously had enough confidence in their process and apparatus to make such bold claims at that point. Seems like they were fully expecting to make this discovery. They are obviously trying to create the same circumstances as before and now they can't recreate the result, so the first two times must have been two seperate, but indentical fluke results.

And yes, it was a "simpleton example". It works in EXACTLY the same way because it describes coincidence.

I mean it was an example only a simpleton would come up with since it doesn't inolve the same probability as a 1 in 6 chance. Derp doesn't even cover it.

a reply to: TheMaxHeadroomIncident

They were expecting the same results. That doesn't mean anything. I can expect it to be sunny, but it doesn't mean it will be.

Now you're starting with the insults? Just goes to show you've already lost the argument.

Coincidence is coincidence. Doesn't matter if it's 1 in 6 or 1 in a billion. It's still coincidence.

a reply to: TheMaxHeadroomIncident

He is clearly explaining the first matching results from seperate experiments as a "coincidence".

Do you think the same experiment with two different detectors won't find the same anomaly...because that is what happened when they compared data.

Believe it or not it happens.

a reply to: TheMaxHeadroomIncident

What page are you refering tsurfer?

What need me to hand feed you...won't happen.

Wow, I don't know who are affected more by the Mandela Effect, it's proponents or the opponents?

The opposition seems more rabid and hysterical to me.


I don't know what the OP was thinking but maybe he interpreted this wrong,

Hopes for the imminent discovery of a particle that might fundamentally change our understanding of the Universe have been put on hold.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

What I mean to say is, tsurfer....., that I asked a question, and you linked that PDF, implying that according to you, the answer to my question is in there. Since you know this, you must also know what page it is on, since you must have read it.

What page?

a reply to: Pearj

"It just seems to be a statistical fluke, that the South American Landmass was in one position on two maps and is no longer in the same position. Coincidences are always strange when they happen - but I've been looking very hard at my maps to make sure I'm not going crazy, yet they continue to not be where I expected them based off the sample the day before."

Who made that quote and where is the link for it?

a reply to: TheMaxHeadroomIncident

Again you asked for the results and I gave you something to look at from them concerning the results...I gave you what you asked for the rest is up to you.

And you seem to be smart enough to actually look at it to find what you want to find...I don't babysit anyone.

a reply to: TheMaxHeadroomIncident

The opposition seems more rabid and hysterical to me.

And so does the whole made up Mandela Effect to those who see it for what it is...hysterically funny.

a reply to: Pearj

Another possible explanation; it is gone black for military purposes as did the faster than light speed particle.
Business as usual.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: TheMaxHeadroomIncident

The opposition seems more rabid and hysterical to me.

And so does the whole made up Mandela Effect to those who see it for what it is...hysterically funny.

And yet you're the clown right?

Decided to read a few of the debunker's posts. A few weren't going on about how the Mandela Effect is fake, but asking why I gave the title I did.. so I can respond to that.

So the article says that they were going to fire up the LHC for this experiment, but now they are not as the data that was there isn't there now, therefore no need to fire it up.

That seems like a ridiculously long title..

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.

Furthermore, I gave the source for all to see - if I was trying to hoax something (which I don't do) I wouldn't put a link to the correct information nearby. lol ..You have to admit your claim sounds silly.

At any rate - I have a feeling the real issue is that the naysayers don't like how I interpreted the article - but it's my interpretation in my post. A simple solution is for you to create a post that gives your interpretation of the info - which you have. What more do you have to add?

My interpretation of the article in a nutshell said:

"They had a bump, but they can't recreate it, therefore the test they were going to fire the LHC up for has been suspended. Isn't that like the Mandela Effect?"

I don't see any issue with that interpretation - or I wouldn't of posted it. I don't care if you don't like my interpretation of it - I put it out there for others that feel the same way I do to talk about - not you (although you're welcome to, it's just not for you).

Being that angry all the time can't be healthy. It certainly isn't healthy for conversation - which is why you're largely ignored by me (I want you to be healthy). You simply aren't productive to the topic, past saying you disagree.

Hope that clears that up, carry on.

Edit to add:
Quick note - you know moderators have been in this thread - you can see their actions. If the moderators felt like I was trying to hoax something they would of taken action immediately. Are you saying the moderators don't do a good job? I for one would be a little frustrated with you (as a moderator) for trying to tell me how to do my job. Which is exactly what you're trying to do, because you don't like the info presented.. Very transparent and very childish.

You're a kid in a classroom trying to tell the teacher how their class should be ran.

.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

And yet you're the clown right?

Yep who doesn't just blindly believe anything he sees online which is why research is good.

Something that could have prevented this thread from being wrong about it's premise.