[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/sci/ - Science & Math


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • Use with [math] tags for inline and [eqn] tags for block equations.
  • Right-click equations to view the source.
  • There are 46 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]



explain this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgAKKe7LPkk

(I know you can't but I want to see you try)
>>
>>9864502
>I don't understand X
>Therefore it's a conspiracy!
Please fuck off.
>>
>>9864820
OP proven wrong again!
>>
>>9864502
The vid won't play on ths crappy old-ass tablet. I want you to explain THAT!

(I know you can't, but I want to wee you try.)

Also, which idiot conspiracy theory is this vid pushing?
>>
>>9864883
Mandela effect is a stupid theory that history has been altered because people peopl mis-remember things, usually due to memes.

Named so because some people thought Mandela died in prison.
Another example is "Luke, I am your father" when the actual quote is "No, I am your father".
>>
>>9864883
get a real computer fgt pls
>>
It turns out there's a whole community of people who believe this shit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwWLEhYwN1c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt-_0C52THo
>>
>>9865023
There is at least one annual Flat Earth conference as well, so i find it hard to be surprised anymore
>>
This is an easy Mandela to explain

The reason why some people remember engines under the wing is because cartoons and other fictional depictions still show them that way thus the brain gets confused and your internal image of the plane get fussy so you freak out when you actually pay attention to it
>>
>>9864502
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X5VHl0eMTk
>>
>>9864502
Jesus Christ, who is this guy?
He calls himself an engineer, but for what? Is a roading engineer? Does he know anything about turbofan engines at all.
>trust my claims that this engine isnt as long as it should be
>there should only be a single tapered exhaust on the engine because i totally know how turbofans work

>>9865112
Older designs do tend to have the engines mounted less forward, and some engines were quite long, putting a lot of their area under the wing. It's not really a false memory, the engines have just been creeping forward and getting shorter overall. Mounting further forward does increase the torque load on the wing, but the operative word there is increase, so what you do is that you build that loading into your design. And as explained in >>9865119 you get a reduction in drag which results in less power being needed which reduces the amount of torque load on the wing.

Then the last thing about how black the bottom of the wing is. That's fucking carbon deposits. It being black is in no way a measure of how hot the wing is getting behind the exhaust there or if any heat transfer is going to the fuel.
Also, fucking propeller aircraft did exactly the same for a long fucking time. No one gives two shits.
>>
File: AustraliaDoesn'tExist.png (307 KB, 493x378)
307 KB
307 KB PNG
>>9864502
Yeah - anything to stand out.
"Look at me! Look at me!"
>>
File: jet plane.jpg (116 KB, 1280x720)
116 KB
116 KB JPG
>>9865156
And the planes with the engines mounted on the back are longer and sleeker.
>>
>>9867061
I think that was covered in the video as well.
>>
>>9865023
The end off the first video is quite sad. Imagine having a son that fucking retarded.
>>
>>9867257
The previous video has an entire phone conversation between them:
https://youtu.be/cwWLEhYwN1c?t=590
It's downright painful to listen to.
>>
>>9864502
The steel is in tension and it can take it more air gets under the wing
What else is there to say?
>>
What the everloving fuck did i just watch?
>>
>>9865023
What's the implication of them having changed anyway?
>>
>>9864502
When powered, it produces torque in the opposite direction canceling out its gravitational torque.
>>
>>9869192
See >>9865119
>>
>>9869335
I meant why is someone who seems like conspiracy theorist concerned with plane engines being move forward slightly
>>
>>9869607
Because people who believe one conspiracy are more likely to believe other conspiracies.
Likely most of these people believe other stupid shit, and this is just something they noticed and so it turned into another conspiracy.

Though if I remember correctly there is a conspiracy theory around the Mandela effect that it is a sign of mind control, peoples' memories being rewritten. So for a portion of the conspiracy theorists it is probably just an example of the greater mind control conspiracy theory.
>>
File: cq5dam.web.1200.675.jpg (57 KB, 1200x675)
57 KB
57 KB JPG
It's a bloody glitch...
>>
OK, but why do most depictions of kites involve a tow-point or bridle (ways the string attaches to the kite) that make flying impossible? Maybe it's just that people who don't understand WHY certain things are the way they are don't accurately remember the details? That seems more likely than a conspiracy.
>>
>>9864502
Is this guy intentionally trying to make his ideas sound both foolish and as boring as possible? Man, that voice is incredibly irritating, yet dull at the same time.
>>
>>9864502
What is his point? That these planes don't actually fly?
>>
File: 1190416712615.jpg (48 KB, 450x337)
48 KB
48 KB JPG
>>9872458
I was wondering this too. He does not seem to actually address the "Mandela Effect" at all, unless I really misunderstand what that term is supposed to denote.

Instead, he seems to be trying to argue that current jet aircraft designs cannot work, while also mentioning that he flies in them frequently.
>>
>>9872464
It's just a big flight simulator breh
>>
>>9864502
Explain what? You're insane. Literally. Take your meds.
>>
>>9865023
Holy fuck, this is hilarious.
>>
>>9865023
Idiocracy is real.
>>
File: woah.jpg (60 KB, 663x610)
60 KB
60 KB JPG
So apparently, the guy in OP's video (or OP himself) believes we live in a simulation and the fact that he misremembers the placement of jet engines is proof of it.
You know, there was a time when I thought flat earth posters were being ironic. I think I was grossly mistaken.
>>
>>9867124
>that was covered in the video
>>
>>9872858
What struck me was not that he misremembered where the engines were -- I'm not sure he ever even says that -- what struck me as that he seems convinced that where they actually are is "wrong." He thinks that reality doesn't work because it conflicts with his impression of what it SHOULD be.
>>
>>9872858
Most of that shit is just psyops to make people lose faith in various authorities.
>>
>>9864933
Seems like the effects of too much time travel, if you ask me.
>>
>>9873504
How would you know the effects of too much time travel?
>>
>>9864502
that video was FUCKING SHIT
you should be ashamed of yourself OP.
>>
File: TRINITY___Forever.jpg (153 KB, 1024x683)
153 KB
153 KB JPG
>>
>>9873760
Can you please be a little less ambiguous?
>>
>>9873454
He says as much in other videos. There seems to be a lot of crazies who believe in this shit. He is insisting that the placement is "wrong" and shouldn't work because he thinks collective false memories are caused by glitches in the Matrix. It's pretty tragicomical.
>>
>>9865156
>Mounting further forward does increase the torque load on the wing
compared to perfectly centered it would be less during flight though. A perfectly centered engine is still below the wing, so the thrust is off center from the mounting point (literally the definition of torque). If the engine is more forwards, some of the off center thrust is canceled by the off center weight.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>
>>9875003
I think that largely depends on how far below the wing it is and how you actually design the mount.
>>
>>9875067
Assuming you are a competent aircraft designer, you'd do it correctly so that the torque from the thrust more or less offsets the torque from the forward placement.
>>
>>9875188
Exactly. We are assuming competence in the designers while he is assuming he knows more than them.
>>
>>9864502
>I am a frequent flyer so I am an intellectual authority on modern aerospace engineering
Bitch has too much time on his hands, boom: video explained.

Zero estimation of weight of the engine vs structural integrity of the wing means he is just throwing ideas at the wall hoping they stick, he has made no credible or plausible claims.
>>
Mandela Effect is real though, and for most people those "changes" happend more or less over night.
>>
>>9876797
Mandela effect. You mean the effect where people don't pay attention to detail in everyday objects because it is unimportant to the use of that object?
>>
>>9876797
>>9876811
I love how even the name, the flagship example, is something only underage fags or "urop is a country"-tier americans could believe.
>>
File: cerealguy.jpg (27 KB, 474x425)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
>>9877113
Oh you mean his death being reported on tv for few days saying he died of an illness and lacking medical attion (implying but never saying he was murdered), followed by talkshows having mandela as subject, south africa, apartheid and what his death might mean for the future there, news showing his wife cying after the funeral, then some reports on mandelas resitant group that didn't get as violent as expected?

Then roughly a decate later, News saying Apartheid is getting BFTO'd and Mandela is getting president?

Then when Mandela died the second time, people talking how they though he was already dead and noticing that more people shared those memories?

Giving that wierd situation a name?

Finding out there are more and more of those things, increasing and more people being affected?

I don't give a shit whenever you believe it or not. I already have reached the conclusion, that if you can't see the changes then there is something wrong with you. You're either an "NPC" a demon or an alien larping as human.
>>
>>9877248
Haha holy shit
>>
>>9877248
You seem to be confused.
The entire thing about the Mandela effect is that people thought he was already dead when the news came out he died. If people knew he had become president then that would be the focus, but it's solely focused on the double death.
So the answer is simple. His death was misreported, media doesn't like doing retractions so there was little news to correct it, people don't pay much attention to International news otherwise, then they hear he died again and now they're confused.
It's not hard.
>>
>>9877248
Disregarding the complete lack of evidence of anything you said; It's STILL retarded on a logical level.
In 2040 someone like you, born in 2020, will scream about the internet not being invented until 2008. Like you they will also be too dumb to understand the implications of what they're saying is more than a date change on wikipedia.
>>
>>9877273
>b..but the meme didn't say that!
suprise! those speading it aren't neccessary the affected. even though it's no secret, most of us welcome those mistakes because it makes it easier to spot pretenders.
>>
>>9877285
tz, why are you even trying? Do you think after having history changed, continents moved, a different sun and moon, bones and organs moving/changing shape/new grown, owned books changed, known movie phrases and logos changed... basically simply having to look in the mirror or outside the window to see it this "you're dumb, lol" shit is having any effect? Protip: It doesn't.

I have nothing else to do and keep talking about it. It good to find other affected humand so a converstion could be had, and it also seems to trigger non-affected so it double good as it has entertainment value.
>>
>>9877326
>Disregarding the complete lack of evidence of anything you said....
>>
>>9877331
A few thousand witnesses that, independendly but still comparatively the same, reports on changes observed "in reality" an [effect] count as evidence in my book.

It my opinion that matters. You litterally wouldn't see it if evidence jumps and bites you in the ass.
>>
>>9877363
>A few thousand witnesses
A literal fraction of a percent of those exposed to the news. Well within margin of error territory expected for everything.
>>
>>9877363
Can you name a single thing that WOULDN'T be true if we accept 5000 people on facebook saying something as "proof"?
>>
>>9877397
>>9877381
theoretical one witness is enough, a few thousand give it more weight to the witness report. normaly you wouldn't suspect those to be lying out of the blue, with nothing to gain from it.

Well, I understand that in this "reality" lying is the norm, no matter whenever there is reason to or not, this sucks but at least I have memories of a different reality with sane people.
>>
>>9877437
you can be wrong without lying retard. The millions of people who say Ganesha cured their cancer are not lying.
see >>9877397 again
>>
>>9877437
>theoretical one witness is enough
One witness is not enough for anything.

Memories are fallible. I know I have made fake memories in the past and it is certainly possible for memories to get twisted.
>>
>>9877480
every science report ever is written from memories and thus is wrong. every experiment supporting it, is false memory. computer data is random noise/errors that coincidentally fits. do you think you expirience the world in realtime? after your brain interpreted the data, it's already memoy and thus false. what you're doing right now, or a second ago is wrong and entirely made up by you.

refute this.
>>
>>9865023
i had a model aircraft as a kid and it had split winglets did the mandela effect affect me too?
>>
>>9877500
This better be bait.
>>
>>9877565
Why? Fake memories can be made thus everything you remember could be made up. Having people support your made up memories is also not of any value see
>>9877397
or
>>9877447

You aren't even you. You didn't exist a second ago and have been made up by the previous you. How can this be bait. This thead is feels pretty stongly that this is real but of course this also could be made up.

Ergo, the mandela effect exists or you yourself are made up. choose.
>>
>>9877500
>>9877584
The whole thing with science is that you can reproduce it yourself with the method detailed in the paper if you doubt it. Unlike your faggot memories.
Now stop desperately avoiding this question >>9877397
>>
>>9877595
I'm not avoiding the question. I'm supporting and following through with your reasoning. There are no reproductions in science, it's all just your false memory. Any papers read, false memory. Just accept it, you don't want to sound like a "crazy person", do you? If the Mandela Effect is "false memories" then everything you remember is too. Logic.
>>
>>9877437
>one witness is enough
No. Not even in a court of law.
>>
>>9877611
>I'm not avoiding the question
you're desperately avoiding naming a single thing
>There are no reproductions in science
drop a stone from 10 meters and measure time to ground with a stopwatch. Divide 10m with the time you measured. Congrats, you just reproduced the gravitational acceleration of Earth from your grade school textbook
>>
>>9877622
Police officer makes a report about a crime. IHe's counted as witness and accepted by court.

You remember it wrong, obviously.
>>
>>9877629
why do you randomly decide your memories are correct even though it was established that false memories exist. you cannot make conclusions since you have no basis to make them in the first place.
>>
>>9877647
>decide your memories are correct
I don't unless I can verify see >>9877595
>>
>>9877653
verify with what? with your "eyes" like in how you SEE it? by god, your whole "verification" could be a failure but you rember it wrongly as success. do you think peer-review has any value? see >>9877397
either mandela effect is true and proof because witness exist or witnesses are of no value and so are your peers.
>>
>>9877663
>verify with what
for example >>9877629
>>
>>9877500
No. They're written from data collected and recorded during the observations.
>>
>>9877671
>Circular reasoning
Allright, I guess I broke /sci/ or NPCs are out of programmed answers, lol.
>>
>>9877680
Mandela Effect Videos, Websites, R*ddit is collected and recorded data during the observations.
>>
>>9877634
He is a witness, more than just him are needed.
The police officer is rarely the sole witness because then it's just a matter of one person's word against another. This is strongly avoided in law as either one could be lying or just incorrect.
>>
>>9877687
All just "witness" accounts.
Remembering things wrongly is common. Filling in your blanks through suggestion is easy.
>>
>>9877689
depends on the country and court system. most courts around the world see a police officer by default as true and correct.
>>
>>9877693
How is this not an observation in progress? There are almost everyday new videos published. What is the difference between their data and your data?
>>
>>9877694
>most courts around the world see a police officer by default as true and correct.
Literally incorrect.
A police officer is a witness like anyone else.
>>
>>9877700
They didn't record data of the original observation and data which shows when the change in reality took place. They just remember things.
>>
>>9877629
i didnt do cool shit like that in grade school
>>
>>9877718
>They just remember things.
like literally every observation to date

>>9877708
you're incorrect...or do you have witnesses saying otherwise?
>>
>>9877684
It's not circular reasoning, you're simply ignoring things that I'm reminding you of.
>>
>>9877700
>How is this not an observation in progress?
It IS an observation, but it doesn't imply the things that you seem to think it does.

Personally I find the Mandela Effect really interesting. It's obvious that false memories are a fairly common occurrence, but there's no obvious reason to assume that they would be anything but uniformly distributed. And yet it turns out that particular false memories are really common, while others are almost unheard of. It's possible there's a neat physiological effect going on, and that studying it could tell use about how memories are stored and retrieved in the brain. But jumping from "false memories have surprisingly strong correlation between people" to "I was abducted from my natural timeline by the Illuminati" is laughably absurd.
>>
>>9877727
you obviously ignored what I wrote regarding it or you wouldn't have liked to it as answer.

seriously, you (all) should get grip. I'm playing "someone is wrong on the internet" and you're getting boring as fuck. remember when trolling was a art?

I'm not even doing magnets here and you guys still can't into logic.
>>
>>9877726
>you're incorrect
A police witness is a witness.
>A law enforcement officer’s testimony is considered evidence in a court of law; however, as with any witness testimony, the credibility of that evidence can be questioned.
The court considers them no more credible than any other witness. The jury may consider them more credible but that's simply a bias.

Here's the thing. If Mandela had died in prisom he wouldn't have been half as well known as he was when he died. Somehow he becamr president of SA without anyone noticing his alleged death and visited many countries around the world on state trips and theae people didn't notice it.
>>
>>9877743
>you obviously ignored what I wrote
You're ignoring this >>9877397, so yeah, I'm not terribly interested in what you're writing to change topic.
Answer it and I will take you more seriously.
>>
>>9877735
How can you be sure it implies the things you think it does? I mean if you think false memories is really common, how can you me sure that your memory about false memories is correct? Even after that, you don't remember the Mandela Effect changes, from a Mandela Affected perspective it you having a faulty memory.
>>
>>9877745
now, a criminal and no doubt a murderer and terroist who has been years in jail becomes the president of a nation? did people not notice? talk about wierd things.
>>
>>9877752
I answered it two times in this thread. >>9877663
>>9877584
you simply fail at text recognision, might be your faulty memory.
>>
>>9877760
>did people not notice?
I certainly noticed. He came to my country in 95. No one thought it was odd he was alive then.
>>
>>9877762
I don't see any example of a thing that WOULDN'T be true if we accept 5000 people on facebook saying something as "proof"
I only see you avoiding the question.
>>
>>9877764
You see, mandela effects didn't come as often back then. people actually went with, "I must be imaging things" or "Did I remember the person wrong". However, around 2016 those changes really came like BAM one after another and could be ignored or refuted anymore.

>No one thought it was odd
So did you monitor the thoughts of every person at that time? Do you really know? Could it be, some did have those memories but did want to talk about it since a obviously living mandela was visiting? Just asking.
>>
>>9877786
You know what changed?
The Internet. A way for people to gather false information and connect with other people with similar ideas.
>>
>>9877780
There, since you fail so hard, so be it and I write in easier words.

Either you believe an witness or you don't. If you don't then you must have a reason, but if the reason is faulty memory then logically there cannot be witnesses unless you define where "faulty/false memories start and where they stop". If you cannot define it, either all memories are faulty or none are.

So, are 5000 people on facebook proof? yes, until it isn't.
>>
>>9877803
I still don't see any example
>>
Nonsense is difficult to explain.
>>
>alright lads we've made this detailed simulation of the universe
>man this is boring, hey jeff lets change the manufacture of jet engines slightly and see if anyone notices
>>
>>9877753
>How can you be sure it implies the things you think it does?
I'm not. Hence "It's possible".

>I mean if you think false memories is really common, how can you me sure that your memory about false memories is correct?
By "surprisingly common" I mean "recalling distant memories will sometimes give false impressions", not "everything you know is wrong!". I can be confident because I can compare my memories to other people, and to physical evidence (such as photos).
>>
>>9877811
that's because I answered your question without an example.
>>
>>9877824
I specifically ask for an example.
Anything other than an example or admitting that you don't know is desperately avoiding a simple question.
>>
>>9877822
Now mandela effect changes, and confident memories about them, are obviously also compared with other people evidently and can be confirmed this way. Physical evidence is difficult since it about exactly physical things changeing, however this can also confirmed by the multitute of things changing and the same things repeadinglingly.

So because it's not just one thing changing, it can be confirmed that things are changing, from the perspective of those seeing the changes of course. How was this done? Not by asking leading questions but by lettling people put forward their memories. I know X changed to Y, it's Y now and "always have been" yet when asked a person for no reason describes an X even though it could have been an A or an T if was just faulty memory.
>>
I only remember the engines being extending foreward from the wing. I remember asking my dad about it when I was a kid and he told me some bs kid talk answer about it that left me more confused.
>>
>>9877833
I'm sorry you don't like the answer. It's my answer non the less. However since you either don't understand it or don't want to, you may pretend I said "five" instead. It's nice word and number. Now, what will you do, I wonder.
>>
>>9877845
>even though it could have been an A or an T if was just faulty memory.
Which explains why people can't agree what year Mandela died in prison.
>>
File: N95SW-5.jpg (494 KB, 1200x796)
494 KB
494 KB JPG
>>9864502
If these morons knew anything about aircraft engines they would understand why they're remembering their positioning differently. Old low bypass engines, which were very common from the 50s to 90s, were long, narrow, and rested almost entirely under the wing of the aircraft. Modern high bypass engines have a lot of notable differences when compared to the older models. They're obviously much wider due to the huge fan, but they've also become shorter in length because of advances in compressor technology. The engines have to rest in front of the wing because there simply isn't enough room to place the engine under it. The largest turbofans have fan diameters of several meters, there's no way you're going to fit that completely under the wing and still have enough ground clearance to avoid sucking in ground debris.

tl;dr: Dumb boomers can't understand that aircraft engines have changed since they were kids
>>
>>9877861
It's negletable if "died in prison" was the thing to be confirmed.
>>
>>9877866
>misses entirely the point of person saying he flys often and noticed the changes happening suddendly and in part successively different from "history"
>>
>>9877845
>Now mandela effect changes, and confident memories about them, are obviously also compared with other people evidently and can be confirmed this way.
Hence the "physical evidence" part of that sentence. Confirmation from other people is good, physical evidence is better. Besides, what makes you think that the majority of people recall the "mandela effect version"? If you only compare notes with a self selected subgroup, you're going to get a hell of a lot of bias.

>Physical evidence is difficult since it about exactly physical things changeing, however this can also confirmed by the multitute of things changing and the same things repeadinglingly.
What the fuck?

>it can be confirmed that things are changing, from the perspective of those seeing the changes of course.
Nobody is disputing that things have changed "from the perspective of those seeing the changes", because that's not actually a significant statement. When I misplace my keys their position has changed "from the perspective of those seeing the changes", but all that means is that my perspective isn't inerrant.

>I , it's Y now and "always have been"
How do you "know X changed to Y"?

>yet when asked a person for no reason describes an X even though it could have been an A or an T if was just faulty memory.
That's what I described in >>9877735
The fact that faulty memories correlate between people is interesting, but you’ve done absolutely nothing to substantiate your claim that it's because reality somehow changed, rather than (for example) simply being an artefact of how the brain works.

tl;dr: You've provided zero evidence of anything other than "some people remember things poorly". You can't assume fantastic explanations while mundane explanations are available.
>>
>>9877876
Yes, because an internet retard's poorly remembered account of "history" is more accurate than every written text detailing the development of aircraft technology for the past 50 years.
>>
>>9877878
You didn't provide evidence that their memories are incorrect. You randomly decide Y is a constant even though it was observed to be a variable. Instead of asking "how can Y be a variable and was it observed" you again randomly decide the observer are mistaken.
>>
>>9877884
You could have written you don't belive it and be done with it. However you decided to write a lengthy text on how he was mistaken, where he's "wrong" while actually ignoring what was said. I wonder why? I think I know but do you? No need to answer, I probably won't believe it anyway.
>>
>>9877907
I explained specifically why he was mistaken and what led to him believing engines used to look different. If you can't accept that as an argument and claim "Im missing the point" , then there's nothing else I can do here.
>>
>>9877896
>You didn't provide evidence that their memories are incorrect.
Their memories directly contradict recoded history. For example, there's tonnes of photographs showing how aircraft engines have changed over time.

>You randomly decide Y is a constant even though it was observed to be a variable.
It's not "random": I'm using the best evidence available.

>Instead of asking "how can Y be a variable and was it observed" you again randomly decide the observer are mistaken.
I DID consider the possibility that "reality has changed". I just dismissed it because it not parsimonious and is completely without evidence.
>>
>>9877920
You bascially wrote: " That person was thinking..." and by default made an idiot out of yourself. If you feel that's unjustified, then post a picure of what will be said in this thread before me or any one else is posting it. If you can't you don't know what people are thinking, you've been proven to be full of shit.
>>
>>9877932
How do you record, measure and test a changine reality? You don't know? Then it's quite likely it's not without evidence but you simply didn't bother to look for it. Again, you randomly decide for it to be so. Then say that you don't want to bother instead of it's without evidence.
>>
>>9877958
>How do you record, measure and test a changine reality?
That's on you to figure out. It's not my responsibility to collect evidence for every crazy idea someone has.

>You don't know? Then it's quite likely it's not without evidence but you simply didn't bother to look for it.
Why on Earth would you think it's "quite likely"?

>Again, you randomly decide for it to be so.
This isn't random, it's basic philosophy of science.

>Then say that you don't want to bother instead of it's without evidence.
The burden of proof is on you. Do you have evidence or not?
>>
>>9877970
I know it possible since I observed it. My observations have been peer reviewed and also observed by independend entities. Changes in reality have been confirmed. Quantifiying and Processing is in progress.

Evidence was brought forth in form of reports and witnesses.

In your case, you lack the "tools" to repeat the observation yourself. However instead of finding out what those "tools" are and how you can aquire them, you simply go with: "I don't have those tools thus by the philosophy of science all reports are wrong and I cannot be bothered to change my mind".

I'm litterally telling you reality is changing. At this point the burden of proof IS on you. Either say: "I cannot measure it so I cannot confirm or deny" or shut up.
>>
If reality has changed then how can you remember it?
If memory can persist through reality change then why can't other things?

There is a paradox. If reality can change so that there is no evidence of the prior events then memories cannot persist, so the only logical conclusion is that many people with similar false memories got together and solidified their false memories.
>>
>>9878027
>no evidence of the prior events then memories cannot persist
that's a baseless theory.

>how can you remember it?
I'd like to know too

>why not other things?
We do not know that. Mandela Affected report on changes not what didn't change. In fact many things are the similar. How to know if a certain thing is only similar or actually the same across realities? Objects aren't talking much, you know.
>>
>>9878006
>I know it possible since I observed it.
Observed what?

>My observations have been peer reviewed and also observed by independend entities.
The fact that you aren't the only person with those views doesn't make them correct. As >>9877397 pointed out, just about every crazy idea has at least some number of people who believe it.

>Evidence was brought forth in form of reports and witnesses.
>Changes in reality have been confirmed.
You're confusing two separate ideas. Your evidence is evidence that "a surprising number of people remember events differently than how history records them". That does NOT imply "history has changed somehow". You are jumping to your preferred conclusion when other, simpler explanations still exist.

>In your case, you lack the "tools" to repeat the observation yourself. However instead of finding out what those "tools" are and how you can aquire them,
Documenting what those tools are is on YOU.

>I'm litterally telling you reality is changing. At this point the burden of proof IS on you.
No it isn't. You have provided ZERO evidence to support your claim that "reality is changing".
>>
>>9878056
>Observed what?
changes

>doesn't make them correct
there is a difference in believing something or observing and reporting something

>NOT imply "history has changed somehow"
No doesn't imply it confirms. It was observed to have changed. That's it, it's that simple.

>Documenting what those tools
allright, like I said we SEE those changes. That would imply eyes or human senses in general only it's not limited to them because the human anthomy across realities changed too and perseption of changes wasn't lost.

>ZERO evidence
again, you randomly decide that to be so. have you recreated and confirmed every single experiment in the history of humanity that was published/reported on? No, then you probably "believe" shit without knowing by trusting people who said they did it and aren't the orginal reporter.

If you cannot see this even though I walked you through up to this point, it's you're own fault. Give it up, you're not fit for science,
>>
>>9878092
How do I sign up for your religion?
>>
>>9878092
I've realized the fundamental differences in our positions.

I value recorded history more than personal memories. I believe that while recorded history is not completely infallible, in aggregate it can fact check itself. Meanwhile personal memories are very unreliable and susceptible to outside interference altering or adding to what you perceive to be a memory.

On the other hand you value personal memories more than recorded history. You believe that reality can be altered and that recorded history is shaped to the current reality, however the deviations from recorded history that are found in personal memories are evidence of the change in reality.
>>
>>9878224
Not really. Like already written in this thread, everything is based on memory even what you percieve as now. The things you call evidence, maybe even physical laws are incomplete (since a universal physical equation hasn't been made yet).

1. you yourself are memory operated
2. you have not complete knowledge of everything
3. you asume things before have confirmation

you simply aren't in the position... to be in a position. objectivly your comment is contradicting (see point 1). to make a judgment or to have values regarding this subject, you're far from being able to do so.

You have an opinion, granted, anyone can have it.

Still, if you deny the correctness of my memory you deny your own existance, because it's memory based. Of course you're invited to proudly proclaim "I do not exist!" but then what you say also ceased to exist... or at least you exited the conversation by giving up.
>>
>>9878319
>Like already written in this thread, everything is based on memory even what you percieve as now.
No. That's literally not true. People who have had brain damage and have no short term memory can still perceive things, so that's objectively false.
>>
>>9878323
I have a different brain, the complete layout (well almost) including the location of the cervical vertebra moved with nervous connections.

I can confidently say, the brain doesn't store memories at all.

How about the brain is at best a transreciever and input interpreter somehow connected to what contains memories (your concious) outside what can be percieved as reality.

thus brain damage like you said doesn't influence "short term" memory but does disturb the translation to this reality.

now, you're saying it's not true, is a false assumption based on false conclusion made by others regarding a subject (brain) they still do not fully understand based on a theory on "reality" that also is incomplete.
>>
>>9878363
>I have a different brain
I'd like some evidence for that.
>I can confidently say, the brain doesn't store memories at all.
Known to be false because you can remove parts of the brain to remove memories.
>now, you're saying it's not true, is a false assumption based on false conclusion made by others regarding a subject (brain) they still do not fully understand based on a theory on "reality" that also is incomplete.
No, you're just making up shit.
>>
>>9878377
again, do you know everything? No, then what I said is correct and you're not. Also, denying the last part as "you're just making up shit" shows how little you actually know and worse, how little you can understand even though it was just explained to you. Even though I'm already tempted to call you 'NPC out of lines', I'm bored anyway and can talk all days about this or at least until I'm tired or feel like fapping.
>>
>>9878386
>again, do you know everything? No, then what I said is correct and you're not.
Me not knowing everything doesn't make you automatically correct.
Do you know everything? No, then what I said is correct and you're not.
>>
>>9878392
I never claimed to know everything but you claimed to know what you don't with examples that do not fit. Because of this, you reversing my argument cannot be applied. it's simply logic. well, maybe it's too much for you?
>>
>>9878402
>Because of this, you reversing my argument cannot be applied.
It can be applied because it is logically equivalent.
I never claimed to know everything, but you don't know what I do or do not know. You made an assumption and that assumption may or may not be correct.
You made two claims, one which I asked evidence for and one which we have a lot of evidence against you for, for example the affect of concussions on memory, the affect of removal of parts of the brain on memory.

All you did was claim you were correct because I might not know some things.
>>
>>9878421
>logically equivalent.
out of context. you conviently ignore the parts you seemlingy didn't (or didn't want to) understand. in the post before that one in question I informed you that cannot claim "to know" when litterally everything it's based on is incomplete. only if you had complete knowledge of everything that claim can be made. the correct answer for you was and still is "I do not know, for sure".

The only thing you can claim to be true for sure and nobody could say otherwise, are your own memories but ironically you claim it to be faulty.
>>
>>9878431
>nobody could say otherwise
... well they still could say it technically. would make it necessary right tho.
>>
>>9878431
>out of context.
Completely in context.
> you conviently ignore the parts you seemlingy didn't (or didn't want to) understand.
I understood it. I ignored it because you were just throwing ideas out there. Test your ideas.
>in the post before that one in question I informed you that cannot claim "to know" when litterally everything it's based on is incomplete. only if you had complete knowledge of everything that claim can be made. the correct answer for you was and still is "I do not know, for sure".
Even if your knowledge is incomplete you can still rule out some things depending how complete the knowledge is.
You bullshit can be ruled out, and is ruled out, because our knowledge is enough to rule it out. Our knowledge isn't enough to explain EVERYTHING, but it doesn't have to be to deal with your bullshit.

Also, evidence.
>>
>>9864502
I love how we never get to see what is claimed. yes I see an engine sticking out the front of the wing. But where is the pic that proves it was different before? Oh, I just have to trust the narrator because he is an engineer.
>>
File: A320 original.png (84 KB, 357x291)
84 KB
84 KB PNG
>>9864502
THIS is what an A320 used to look like. Face it, guys. Mandela effect is real.
>>
>>9878092
>No doesn't imply it confirms. It was observed to have changed.
Observations aren't reality.

>allright, like I said we SEE those changes. That would imply eyes or human senses in general only it's not limited to them because the human anthomy across realities changed too and perseption of changes wasn't lost.
That's nice. Do you have anything more concrete than vague recollections of what aircraft are "supposed" to look like?

>again, you randomly decide that to be so.
I didn't decide shit. I asked you if you have any evidence besides "some people remember things this way", and you've failed to provide any.

> have you recreated and confirmed every single experiment in the history of humanity that was published/reported on? No, then you probably "believe" shit without knowing by trusting people who said they did it and aren't the orginal reporter.
I'm more willing to trust independent confirmation of experimental results from multiple widely respected scientists, than the memories of some random person on the internet. That should not surprise you.

>Give it up, you're not fit for science,
Jesus Christ, I'll try one last time:
DO
YOU
HAVE
ANY
ACTUAL
EVIDENCE
???

I don't care about what you've seen, or what your friends remember, because I have no access to those things. Do you have any actual evidence? Is there anything at all you can show me which makes your claims about history being altered seem more plausible than this being a simple case of faulty memories?
>>
File: 1531666529936.jpg (68 KB, 448x348)
68 KB
68 KB JPG
everyone who's not memeing about this shit is fucking retarded
>literal gods that can rewrite history but can't rewrite the memories of some random people
and what's even more stupid is that even if they were correct, what do they expect to do about it? It all has the tone of a conspiracy theory, which usually aim to uncover some scheme. But even if you can uncover this scheme, what the hell do you expect to do against gods? Even if they can't change memories for some reason and want this plot to stay secret, they could just rewrite history so the "people" uncovering this secret die. You can't rebel against god, kids.
>>
>>9878613
>trying to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced
stop wasting your time
>>
File: 6c3.png (122 KB, 250x386)
122 KB
122 KB PNG
>>9864502
>mfw engineers
The "Mandela effect" is militant brainletism at this point.
Apparently, being a subhuman engin*er makes you unable to notice the advent of high-bypass turbofans.

>>9877896
Memory is also "physical" you retard. It's not some super magic multiverse teleporting substance. Positive claims not backed by empirical evidence is worthless -all mandelesque claims are worthless.
>b-but it was realz in my mind X^(
Prove it or consider suicide.
>>
>>9878511
>>
>>9878511
>>9880052
MOOOODS

TERRY IS POSTING CURSED IMAGES ON /sci/ AGAAAAAIN




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.