The Mandela Effect Can No Longer Be Denied: Berenstein Was The Tip of The Iceberg

a reply to: alienDNA

lol except one problem with you calling everyone dumb... There is an outtake scene where he DOES say Life is like a box of chocolates. It's of the exact same scene and most of the people with the ME agree that this is the scene they remember seeing without ever having seen the dvd out takes.

Jaden

a reply to: alienDNA

Easy, this reality has a different editing choice...lol wow for as much as you like to call others stupid, you don't think things through very much, do you?

Jaden

Your subconscious mind, filling in the blanks... use Kitkat as an example.. on a normal day, who the # is going to notice the dash, or not? You're walking into heb with the subconscious belief that it is Kit-kat of corse you are not walking through the store thinking about kit-kat, you aren't even going to buy one this time... so your mind will fill in blanks that you are not paying attention to with what you believe cold heartedly it is.

Sort of like those videos where you are watching the guy talk, or do a magic trick... and while he does his thing in front of a red background, they change the background color to blue. You probably won't even notice it because you are distracted by the man doing the magic trick. Your subconscious, for the whole video, sees the background as red. After all, it was red before. Why wouldn't it be red when I look back? BUT indeed at the end of this video they let you know.. "did you notice the background changed to blue?"

And only after they tell you this, do you notice it is different the second time. Just as I will never see kit-kat again, you will always notice the change of background if you watch the video over.


This would explain why it is only subtle changes and not giant obvious ones.

You have to pay attention to these "changes" inorder to see them for what they trule are and always were.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: GoShredAK
Oh, hundreds of thousands. That makes a big difference compared to billions. I don't suppose you have anything to back that up though?

You sane ones from the faulty memory camp seem like the minority.

You have an odd understanding of statistics.

He has an "odd understanding of statistics". Not, "no, I don't agree and here's why" or "here's something you are missing about stats." No, his understanding of statistics is to be put under question, classified as odd. This seems unnecessarily provocative.

Earlier in this thread someone mentioned "unthinkable technology", which you replied to with "Unthinkable, you seem to have thought of it." Was that snark or a just a trivial objection?

Acting pedantic and superfluous is bad for you.

a reply to: Alto88

If there is an unthinkable technology, yet someone is thinking about it, doesn't that mean it is not unthinkable? I think Phage was correctly pointing out the circular logic involved there.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Alto88

If there is an unthinkable technology, yet someone is thinking about it, doesn't that mean it is not unthinkable? I think Phage was correctly pointing out the circular logic involved there.

Do you understand the word "unthinkable"?

originally posted by: Alto88

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Alto88

If there is an unthinkable technology, yet someone is thinking about it, doesn't that mean it is not unthinkable? I think Phage was correctly pointing out the circular logic involved there.

Do you understand the word "unthinkable"?

Do you understand the word "understand?"

a reply to: Masterjaden

The Portrait of Dorian Grey. Just presented this to a 24 year old. I knew he was into literature so I asked him if he'd read Oscar Wilde. He responded "I've read all his works". I replied "What's the novel with Dorian Grey?" He said "The Portrait of Dorian Grey", no pause, no thinking.

I said, "Google the Portrait of Dorian Grey". He seemed confused. "Just do it", I said. I watched while he said "What the #?" He looked at the results and said, "There's even a Snopes article on this." His brow furrowed. "Maybe I got it wrong" he said. "Nope", I said. "You got it right. Reality has changed."

Judging by the age of this guy this one is super recent. Get ready for an acceleration if you're one of us!

a reply to: TheAiIsLying

Let's look at this part of your post:

His brow furrowed. "Maybe I got it wrong" he said. "Nope", I said. "You got it right. Reality has changed."

The guy actually realized he may actually have it wrong. You went with the stupid option.

a reply to: raymundoko

Well I said that to him mostly to mess with his head even more than it was already messed with. I honestly have no idea what's behind this whole phenomena. To claim that there's nothing to it other than extremely selective and collective bad memory seems to me, well, "stupid".

It's too early, and nobody, to my knowledge has done a study on this, to come to a conclusion one way or the other. Dismissing it as just bad memory is as bad as saying people who've seen UFOs are just hallucinating, or just got confused by Venus at 3 am performing high speed right angle turns.

Changed reality is a pretty cool idea, though.

a reply to: raymundoko

You see this is the problem... Many people try to reconcile reality with what they believe their memories to be. The natural reaction is to think maybe you got it wrong, or maybe they changed something for marketing purposes. There could be untold millions of people with the same different memories but the vast majority will write it off as one of these things.

I know I had written off many of them without research or giving it a second thought. I distinctly remember walking through the super market and noticing jif peanut butter for the first time and writing it off as a marketing change and thinking to myself, huh, why did they change the name?

I distinctly remember seeing who framed roger rabbit on ppv after having seen it in the theater and seeing that the ending had COMPLETELY changed. I wrote it off as an editing change going to video but it was still odd to me that they would change it so drastically.

Most people will dismiss these things as such until shown that their memories appear to have never been the case, and then most will do exactly what this guy did, dismiss it as just having been wrong.

It's not until you run into one that you know like you know your own name that you really stop and say, WOHHHH, what is going on here?

Jaden

originally posted by: GoShredAK

www.technologyreview.com...

instein’s phrase “spooky action at a distance” has become synonymous with one of the most famous episodes in the history of physics—his battle with Bohr in the 1930s over the completeness of quantum mechanics.

Einstein’s weapons in this battle were thought experiments that he designed to highlight what he believed were the inadequacies of the new theory. The most famous of these is the EPR paradox, announced in 1935 and named after its inventors Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen.

It involves a pair of particles linked by the strange quantum property of entanglement (a word coined much later). Entanglement occurs when two particles are so deeply linked that they share the same existence. In the language of quantum mechanics, they are described by the same mathematical relation known as a wavefunction.

Entanglement arises naturally when two particles are created at the same point and instant in space, for example. Entangled particles can become widely separated in space. But even so, the mathematics implies that a measurement on one immediately influences the other, regardless of the distance between them.

Einstein and co pointed out that according to special relativity, this was impossible and therefore, quantum mechanics must be wrong, or at least incomplete. Einstein famously called it spooky action at a distance. The EPR paradox stumped Bohr and was not resolved until 1964, long after Einstein’s death.

CERN physicist John Bell resolved it by thinking of entanglement as an an entirely new kind of phenomenon, which he termed “nonlocal.” The basic idea here is to think about the transfer of information. Entanglement allows one particle to instantaneously influence another but not in a way that allows classical information to travel faster than light. This resolved the paradox with special relativity but left much of the mystery intact.

These days, the curious nature of entanglement is the subject of intense focus in labs around the world. But that doesn’t tell the full story, says Hrvoje Nikoli at the Rudjer Boskovic Institute in Croatia. Today, he reveals that although history first records this paradox in 1935, Einstein unknowingly stumbled across it much earlier, in 1930. At this time, he was working on another paradox, which he presented at the 6th Solvay Conference in Brussels in 1930.

This problem focused on the Heisenberg uncertainty relation between energy and time, which states that you cannot measure both with high accuracy. To challenge this, Einstein came up with the following thought experiment. Imagine a box that can be opened and closed quickly and which contains an ensemble of photons. When open, the box emits a single photon. The time of emission can be measured with arbitrary precision–it’s just the length of time for which the box was open.

According to quantum mechanics, this limits the resolution with which you can measure the photon’s energy. But Einstein pointed out that this too can be measured with arbitrary precision, not by measuring the photon but by measuring the change of energy of the box when the photon is emitted, which must be equal to the energy of the photon. Therefore, quantum mechanics is inconsistent, he said. Einstein’s great rival, Bohr, puzzled long and hard over this but eventually came up with the following argument.

He said that Einstein’s own theory of general relativity provided the answer. Since the measurement of time takes place in a gravitational field, the lapse in time during which the box is open must also depend on the box’s position. The uncertainty in position is an additional factor that Einstein had not taken into account, and this, according to Bohr, resolved the paradox. Einstein was sent packing.

Of course, this is not a very satisfactory answer to the modern eye. It implies, for one thing, that quantum mechanics requires general relativity to be consistent, an idea that modern physicists would roundly reject. Nikoli says this problem has never been satisfactorily analyzed from a modern perspective. Until now.

He says the proper resolution is to think of the total energy of the system, which is the energy of the box and the energy of the photon. The total energy is constant and governed by a single mathematical entity, even after the photon is emitted. So the box and the photon must be entangled.

This immediately raises the problem that Einstein later hit on in the EPR paradox. A measurement on the box immediately influences the photon and vice versa–spooky action at a distance. For this reason, the photon paradox is equivalent to the EPR paradox, says Nikoli. Had Einstein noticed it, he could have stopped Bohr in his tracks.

That’s an interesting historical footnote. Bohr’s triumph over Einstein on this occasion is widely thought to have been his greatest. But now it’s easy to see that things could have been significantly different if Einstein had reformulated his argument in terms of entanglement. Thus is history forged!

Quantum entanglement, spooky action at a distance, superposition, parallel universes.........mandela effect.

Wow thats crazy CERN and other labs doing all kinds of other spooky actions has resulted in scrambled up data for past and present reality.

originally posted by: wickd_waze

originally posted by: GoShredAK

www.technologyreview.com...

instein’s phrase “spooky action at a distance” has become synonymous with one of the most famous episodes in the history of physics—his battle with Bohr in the 1930s over the completeness of quantum mechanics.

Einstein’s weapons in this battle were thought experiments that he designed to highlight what he believed were the inadequacies of the new theory. The most famous of these is the EPR paradox, announced in 1935 and named after its inventors Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen.

It involves a pair of particles linked by the strange quantum property of entanglement (a word coined much later). Entanglement occurs when two particles are so deeply linked that they share the same existence. In the language of quantum mechanics, they are described by the same mathematical relation known as a wavefunction.

Entanglement arises naturally when two particles are created at the same point and instant in space, for example. Entangled particles can become widely separated in space. But even so, the mathematics implies that a measurement on one immediately influences the other, regardless of the distance between them.

Einstein and co pointed out that according to special relativity, this was impossible and therefore, quantum mechanics must be wrong, or at least incomplete. Einstein famously called it spooky action at a distance. The EPR paradox stumped Bohr and was not resolved until 1964, long after Einstein’s death.

CERN physicist John Bell resolved it by thinking of entanglement as an an entirely new kind of phenomenon, which he termed “nonlocal.” The basic idea here is to think about the transfer of information. Entanglement allows one particle to instantaneously influence another but not in a way that allows classical information to travel faster than light. This resolved the paradox with special relativity but left much of the mystery intact.

These days, the curious nature of entanglement is the subject of intense focus in labs around the world. But that doesn’t tell the full story, says Hrvoje Nikoli at the Rudjer Boskovic Institute in Croatia. Today, he reveals that although history first records this paradox in 1935, Einstein unknowingly stumbled across it much earlier, in 1930. At this time, he was working on another paradox, which he presented at the 6th Solvay Conference in Brussels in 1930.

This problem focused on the Heisenberg uncertainty relation between energy and time, which states that you cannot measure both with high accuracy. To challenge this, Einstein came up with the following thought experiment. Imagine a box that can be opened and closed quickly and which contains an ensemble of photons. When open, the box emits a single photon. The time of emission can be measured with arbitrary precision–it’s just the length of time for which the box was open.

According to quantum mechanics, this limits the resolution with which you can measure the photon’s energy. But Einstein pointed out that this too can be measured with arbitrary precision, not by measuring the photon but by measuring the change of energy of the box when the photon is emitted, which must be equal to the energy of the photon. Therefore, quantum mechanics is inconsistent, he said. Einstein’s great rival, Bohr, puzzled long and hard over this but eventually came up with the following argument.

He said that Einstein’s own theory of general relativity provided the answer. Since the measurement of time takes place in a gravitational field, the lapse in time during which the box is open must also depend on the box’s position. The uncertainty in position is an additional factor that Einstein had not taken into account, and this, according to Bohr, resolved the paradox. Einstein was sent packing.

Of course, this is not a very satisfactory answer to the modern eye. It implies, for one thing, that quantum mechanics requires general relativity to be consistent, an idea that modern physicists would roundly reject. Nikoli says this problem has never been satisfactorily analyzed from a modern perspective. Until now.

He says the proper resolution is to think of the total energy of the system, which is the energy of the box and the energy of the photon. The total energy is constant and governed by a single mathematical entity, even after the photon is emitted. So the box and the photon must be entangled.

This immediately raises the problem that Einstein later hit on in the EPR paradox. A measurement on the box immediately influences the photon and vice versa–spooky action at a distance. For this reason, the photon paradox is equivalent to the EPR paradox, says Nikoli. Had Einstein noticed it, he could have stopped Bohr in his tracks.

That’s an interesting historical footnote. Bohr’s triumph over Einstein on this occasion is widely thought to have been his greatest. But now it’s easy to see that things could have been significantly different if Einstein had reformulated his argument in terms of entanglement. Thus is history forged!

Quantum entanglement, spooky action at a distance, superposition, parallel universes.........mandela effect.

Wow thats crazy CERN and other labs doing all kinds of other spooky actions has resulted in scrambled up data for past and present reality.

It sure seems like it.

With what has been discovered in quantum mechanics I feel like the Mandela effect is actually within the realm of feasibility , as freaky as it is.

The ones that get me the most was the Australia/NZ thread I thought I use to think NZ was north east side of Australia and that they use to be nowhere near landmasses. And recently its been what use to be depends, the prince and queen lyrics and fruit loops. I remember thinking thats pretty clever how they have 2 cereals for froot and 2 more for loops in the name they gave it. I remember also one of the politicians, I think it was McCain or Bush, telling a joke about one of their competitors brief or boxer questions with punchline being depends with the "s". Probably doesn't confirm anything but they thought it was with a "S" too.

a reply to: GoShredAK

So you are familiar with Quantum Mechanics? Please, explain then how exactly this is possible...I've linked peer reviewed quantum papers that show this actually ISN'T probable, so I want to know which ones you have found that lead to to disagree with that.

a reply to: wickd_waze

So if NZ was NE of Australia explain how the Southern Island has snow 24x7, 365...

a reply to: wickd_waze

So you agree that Froot Loops has always been Froot Loops and not Fruit Loops?

Jaz Coleman knows what's going on...



Pylons of death pulsing wave after wave through us
Human transmitters restructure reality
Smart dust and barium sprayed at high altitude
Ingesting nano-worms, humans can resonate

On the skyline the pylons of death
Modulating our reality
Dawn Of The Hive

Angels, holograms, visions and voices come
Signals inducing inter-cerebral hearing
Modulating realities background frequency
Connect the hive mind by pylons and tower masts

Micro-wave tower satellite masts
On the skyline the pylons of death
Pulse low frequencies to all terrestrial life
Modulating our reality
Dawn Of The Hive

The all-seeing eye that never sleeps
Connects the hive mind by pylons and tower masts
The blasted tower, a place of dread
Pulsing the waves of the new normalization
Micro-wave tower satellite masts
On the skyline the pylons of death
Pulse low frequencies to all terrestrial life
Modulating our reality
Dawn Of The Hive

Yep. I think its's the THC and other drugs in the water and CERN and all the damn microwaves and radio waves and heaven only knows what else in the air. We're making ourselves nuts.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Yep. I think its's the THC and other drugs in the water and CERN and all the damn microwaves and radio waves and heaven only knows what else in the air. We're making ourselves nuts.

Something is definitely going on.
Caught up with an old work mate this week, he's uni educated, degree in chemistry, not into his conspiracy stuff, no nonsense kind of guy.
He gave his usual "here we go again" look when I bring up aliens, new world order or paranormal stuff when I started about the Mandela Effect.
He scoffed at most examples, however, he was a bit blown away by "luke, i am your father", "life is like a box of chocolates" and "interview with a Vampire". But when I told him to look at the world map he was pretty upset by the location of South America.
He, like everyone else I've spoken to about this say it's way too far east. Still 100% of people face to face say it's not right. Still the only people who say the contrary are a few anonymous members on this site, and given the nature of the beast I can cut the number of those people down due to the probable use of multiple accounts of some of those.

Given that 100% "misremember" the exact same specifics, and that I've noticed the skeptics on this site seem to get hung up on irrelevancies and steer the debate away from the meat of some points being made, I'm leaning towards the idea that changes have happened, for everyone, and the fault in memory is in fact coming from the other side, which of course is fundamentallly a result of denial.