Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 45678910 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 214

Thread: [Bunk] Parallel Universe: The Mandela Effect

  1. #91
    Retired Member Norway
    Join Date
    2nd July 2015
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    5,065
    Thanks
    73,935
    Thanked 23,318 Times in 5,067 Posts
    In Norway, from May to sometime in July, nobody sees stars at all. The sky is so bright that we can only see the planets depending on where they are, the Moon is always visible of course. Just a thought.

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Elen For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (1st July 2016), Cearna (4th July 2016), Dreamtimer (1st July 2016), modwiz (1st July 2016), Novusod (1st July 2016)

  3. #92
    Senior Member Morocco modwiz's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Location
    Nestled in Appalachia
    Posts
    6,720
    Thanks
    40,125
    Thanked 41,242 Times in 6,698 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Elen View Post
    In Norway, from May to sometime in July, nobody sees stars at all. The sky is so bright that we can only see the planets depending on where they are, the Moon is always visible of course. Just a thought.
    And a post.
    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" -- Voltaire

    "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."-- Eleanor Roosevelt

    "Misery loves company. Wisdom has to look for it." -- Anonymous

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to modwiz For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (1st July 2016), Cearna (4th July 2016), Dreamtimer (1st July 2016), Elen (1st July 2016), Novusod (1st July 2016)

  5. #93
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    21st March 2015
    Posts
    434
    Thanks
    908
    Thanked 2,514 Times in 431 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by modwiz View Post
    For me the weirdest bible changes seem driven by a common core mentality and have no correlation to a Mandela Effect which is a real shift in timelines, IMO. The one where they use bottles in place of wine-skins and the other where they use stuff instead of goods. Bottles are a modern usage replacement. Stuff is just wrong as it is slang. Stuff is a verb and the first usages as a noun seem to be the material that was put into quilts. The material that was "stuffed" into the little pockets. I feel both belong to the "Dumb Down Effect" and not the discussed one.
    The issue with this rational is the newer bible says wineskins while the older KJV bible that says bottles. Both these bibles predate common core by decades. Common core has only been around since Obama became president. The KJV bible which says: "bottles, stuff, matrix, ****" and other modern vulgar words was translated in the early 1600s.

  6. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Novusod For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (1st July 2016), Cearna (4th July 2016), Dreamtimer (1st July 2016), Elen (1st July 2016), modwiz (1st July 2016)

  7. #94
    (account terminated) United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    17,558
    Thanked 12,648 Times in 2,895 Posts
    Language has changed a lot since the 1600's. "Stuff" today does not have the same meanings and connotations as "stuff" did in the 1600's, just like the words "gay" (joyful) or "faggot" (bundle of sticks) did not have anywhere near the same meanings back then. I posted an etymology for this same word (stuff) earlier in the thread. The King James Bible itself (along with Shakespearean works from around the same time) had an enormous impact upon the English language as every family that spoke English was reading or listening to readings from it and adopting the idioms and other figures of speech in it. A lot of words and sayings came from the King James Bible as they were being freshly and literally translated out of other languages.

    I think the real problem is not that the passages are somehow anachronistic but that no one here knows much about early modern English vocabulary, and not only that, but nobody is even doing Google searches for the etymologies of these words, which takes a whole 10 seconds. "Stuff" is an old word that was already in usage in the 1600's but it did not have the same connotations as it does today. If anyone really wanted to dig they could even find references to the earliest surviving manuscripts in which the word appears and in what sense it is used, or how the word evolved into modern English. This is what philologists do.

    But then again nothing about this argument really makes sense because in the end someone can just claim "No, no, all of this stuff is just false memories" or "I came from a different timeline and it wasn't like that there," as if said person had ever checked the etymologies of these words in the alleged other reality they used to be in. So then what does any of this matter?

    If it's a person changing realities and not the book itself then what difference does it make what the book says now? Isn't it part of the reality allegedly just warped to? If so then why should it be anachronistic here? And if someone isn't checking etymologies now with a 10 second Google search then they sure as hell weren't doing it for these same random words before they allegedly changed realities, to have any prior memory to compare them to. The whole argument to me is extremely superficial and really nonsensical.

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (1st July 2016), Cearna (4th July 2016), Dreamtimer (1st July 2016), Elen (2nd July 2016), modwiz (1st July 2016)

  9. #95
    Senior Member Morocco modwiz's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Location
    Nestled in Appalachia
    Posts
    6,720
    Thanks
    40,125
    Thanked 41,242 Times in 6,698 Posts
    I do perceive hints of Flat Earth mentality with people on this topic. With that said, I may need to distance myself from it.
    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" -- Voltaire

    "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."-- Eleanor Roosevelt

    "Misery loves company. Wisdom has to look for it." -- Anonymous

  10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to modwiz For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (1st July 2016), bsbray (1st July 2016), Cearna (4th July 2016), Dreamtimer (1st July 2016), Elen (2nd July 2016)

  11. #96
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    21st March 2015
    Posts
    434
    Thanks
    908
    Thanked 2,514 Times in 431 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by modwiz View Post
    I do perceive hints of Flat Earth mentality with people on this topic. With that said, I may need to distance myself from it.
    Ok Radagast here is one just for you. Is there a Mandela effect in Lord of the Rings? I am big a Lord of the Rings fan and read the book years before the movies came out. I have read the books several times since then but in my most recent reading about a year ago I picked up on something odd.

    The Mandela effect pertains to this quote from the Fellowship of the Ring a Long expected Party.

    "Out flew a red-golden dragon — not life-size, but terribly life-like: fire came from his jaws, his eyes glared down; there was a roar, and he whizzed three times over the heads of the crowd. They all ducked, and many fell flat on their faces. The dragon passed like an express train, turned a somersault, and burst over Bywater with a deafening explosion."

    Was that quote always there because it seems very odd.

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Novusod For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (1st July 2016), Cearna (4th July 2016), Elen (2nd July 2016), modwiz (1st July 2016)

  13. #97
    (account terminated) United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    17,558
    Thanked 12,648 Times in 2,895 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Novusod View Post
    Was that quote always there because it seems very odd.
    So this would be a very good question for you: How could I prove or disprove that all of these books came here from a different reality, replaced all the old books, and say something different now than they used to?

    I mean "proof" in this sense: "evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."

    You have to have a falsifiable hypothesis and a way to test it.

    Falsifiability, as defined by the philosopher, Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.

    Science and philosophy have always worked together to try to uncover truths about the world and the universe around us. Both are a necessary element for the advancement of knowledge and the development of human society.

    Scientists design experiments and try to obtain results verifying or disproving a hypothesis, but philosophers are the driving force in determining what factors determine the validity of scientific results.

    Science and philosophy have always worked together to try to uncover truths about the world and the universe around us. Both are a necessary element for the advancement of knowledge and the development of human society.

    Scientists design experiments and try to obtain results verifying or disproving a hypothesis, but philosophers are the driving force in determining what factors determine the validity of scientific results.

    Often, they even determine the nature of science itself and influence the direction of viable research. As one theory is falsified, another evolves to replace it and explain the new observations.

    One of the tenets behind science is that any scientific hypothesis and resultant experimental design must be inherently falsifiable. Although falsifiability is not universally accepted, it is still the foundation of the majority of scientific experiments.



    What is Falsifiability?

    In its basic form, falsifiability is the belief that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.

    For example, if a scientist asks, "Does God exist?" then this can never be science because it is a theory that cannot be disproved.

    The idea is that no theory is completely correct, but if not falsified, it can be accepted as truth.

    For example, Newton's Theory of Gravity was accepted as truth for centuries, because objects do not randomly float away from the earth. It appeared to fit the figures obtained by experimentation and research, but was always subject to testing.
    https://explorable.com/falsifiability


    Another example of a statement that is not falsifiable: "The chair I'm sitting in used to be polkadot pink but last night I changed realities and now it's just a black chair because I'm in a new reality."

    Now how could we design an experiment to test this scientifically? I can't think of a way. Can you? If not, then this is not a scientific statement because it cannot be challenged with testing. It also happens to be complete nonsense.

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (1st July 2016), Cearna (4th July 2016), Dreamtimer (2nd July 2016), Elen (2nd July 2016), modwiz (1st July 2016)

  15. #98
    Senior Member Morocco modwiz's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Location
    Nestled in Appalachia
    Posts
    6,720
    Thanks
    40,125
    Thanked 41,242 Times in 6,698 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Novusod View Post
    Ok Radagast here is one just for you. Is there a Mandela effect in Lord of the Rings? I am big a Lord of the Rings fan and read the book years before the movies came out. I have read the books several times since then but in my most recent reading about a year ago I picked up on something odd.

    The Mandela effect pertains to this quote from the Fellowship of the Ring a Long expected Party.

    "Out flew a red-golden dragon — not life-size, but terribly life-like: fire came from his jaws, his eyes glared down; there was a roar, and he whizzed three times over the heads of the crowd. They all ducked, and many fell flat on their faces. The dragon passed like an express train, turned a somersault, and burst over Bywater with a deafening explosion."

    Was that quote always there because it seems very odd.
    I would have to dig out my books which lay in a crate after moving three times in two months recently. It would seem to be anachronistic in a big way.
    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" -- Voltaire

    "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."-- Eleanor Roosevelt

    "Misery loves company. Wisdom has to look for it." -- Anonymous

  16. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to modwiz For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (1st July 2016), Cearna (4th July 2016), Dreamtimer (2nd July 2016), Elen (2nd July 2016)

  17. #99
    (account terminated) United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    17,558
    Thanked 12,648 Times in 2,895 Posts
    The LOTR books were first published in the 50's.

    Here's an express train from 1935 in Argentina: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Trochita

    Here's one from 1929 India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Trunk_Express

    Took very little time to find those. Did the idea just not occur to you Novusod, that you could look up things like this and check them very quickly?

    The only thing wrong with Tolkien's statement, for me, is that he references trains at all, because I don't remember reading about any trains anywhere else in the LOTR. It kind of breaks the continuity of this fantasy world he's creating, you know?
    Last edited by bsbray, 1st July 2016 at 23:31.

  18. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (1st July 2016), Cearna (4th July 2016), Dreamtimer (2nd July 2016), Elen (2nd July 2016), modwiz (1st July 2016)

  19. #100
    Senior Member Morocco modwiz's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Location
    Nestled in Appalachia
    Posts
    6,720
    Thanks
    40,125
    Thanked 41,242 Times in 6,698 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by bsbray View Post
    The LOTR books were first published in the 50's.

    Here's an express train from 1935 in Argentina: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Trochita

    Here's one from 1929 India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Trunk_Express

    Took very little time to find those. Did the idea just not occur to you Novusod, that you could look up things like this and check them very quickly?

    The only thing wrong with Tolkien's statement, for me, is that he references trains at all, because I don't remember reading about any trains anywhere else in the LOTR. It kind of breaks the continuity of this fantasy world he's creating, you know?
    That was my point. The anachronism being the Third Age of Middle Earth and the absence of any trains at all and not the authors place in time as a reference point.
    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" -- Voltaire

    "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."-- Eleanor Roosevelt

    "Misery loves company. Wisdom has to look for it." -- Anonymous

  20. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to modwiz For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (1st July 2016), bsbray (2nd July 2016), Cearna (4th July 2016), Dreamtimer (2nd July 2016), Elen (2nd July 2016)

  21. #101
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    21st March 2015
    Posts
    434
    Thanks
    908
    Thanked 2,514 Times in 431 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by bsbray View Post
    The LOTR books were first published in the 50's.

    Here's an express train from 1935 in Argentina: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Trochita

    Here's one from 1929 India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Trunk_Express

    Took very little time to find those. Did the idea just not occur to you Novusod, that you could look up things like this and check them very quickly?

    The only thing wrong with Tolkien's statement, for me, is that he references trains at all, because I don't remember reading about any trains anywhere else in the LOTR. It kind of breaks the continuity of this fantasy world he's creating, you know?
    I am aware of express trains existing in the Early to mid 20th century. To normal people they would think nothing of this line being in the book. But to a Tolkien fan this is very out of character. I have read almost all of Tolkien's other works including Silmarillion and the Lost Tales. Tolkien was a professor of English literature. He had a huge vocabulary and was never at a loss for words to describe the oddities of Middle Earth. Putting express train in the line about the firework dragon is completely out of character for Tolkien's writing style. That word shouldn't be there in the same manner that common vulgarity shouldn't be in the bible. It is something you have to feel to be true rather than having proof that it is true.


    ***
    One thing you should know bsbray is I don't have a very high opinion of the Scientific Method. It was created by the Jesuits to convince people super natural things don't exist. In my opinion the Scientific Method is a declaration of war on spirituality. One of the main proponents of the Scientific Method was Sir Francis Bacon who based his scientific principles on the methodology of the Inquisition. He admired the ways the inquisition could extract confessions from witches. In his book the The New Atlantis Bacon advocated that Mother nature herself should be put on the rack and tortured as a witch until she gave up her secrets. This is not something I approve of so over the years I have backed away from the scientific method.

    http://www.thesouloftheworld.com/the...e-on-the-rack/

    Thinking only along the lines of the Scientific Method puts the human mind in a very small box. It is a box I refuse to be a part of because it is a prison for the mind. If you can't see beyond that box then this thread probably won't be much use to you.

  22. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Novusod For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (2nd July 2016), Cearna (4th July 2016), Dreamtimer (2nd July 2016), Elen (2nd July 2016), modwiz (2nd July 2016)

  23. #102
    (account terminated) United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    17,558
    Thanked 12,648 Times in 2,895 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Novusod View Post
    I am aware of express trains existing in the Early to mid 20th century. To normal people they would think nothing of this line being in the book. But to a Tolkien fan this is very out of character. I have read almost all of Tolkien's other works including Silmarillion and the Lost Tales. Tolkien was a professor of English literature. He had a huge vocabulary and was never at a loss for words to describe the oddities of Middle Earth. Putting express train in the line about the firework dragon is completely out of character for Tolkien's writing style. That word shouldn't be there in the same manner that common vulgarity shouldn't be in the bible. It is something you have to feel to be true rather than having proof that it is true.
    Right, so you feel that this doesn't belong in Tolkien's work, so... the books must have warped in here from another reality. Right?


    One thing you should know bsbray is I don't have a very high opinion of the Scientific Method. It was created by the Jesuits to convince people super natural things don't exist.
    Which Jesuits are you talking about? From what I've seen the Catholic Church (which the Jesuits worked for) was trying to get people to believe in all kinds of supernatural nonsense, ie their theology. It was people like Galileo and Newton who pioneered scientific developments, and they weren't working for the church from anything I have ever seen.

    Thinking only along the lines of the Scientific Method puts the human mind in a very small box. It is a box I refuse to be a part of because it is a prison for the mind. If you can't see beyond that box then this thread probably won't be much use to you.
    You are confusing the scientific method with the materialistic and mechanical worldview that has followed it to replace mystical thinking like what you find in medieval Christianity. The scientific method itself is a method, not a belief system. What you are doing in rebelling against this method is returning to the same fuzzy kind of irrational thinking that typified the medieval period, when people thought that the sky was made out of glass-like layers of heaven and that rubbish in the corner of a room spontaneously generates rats and mice out of thin air.

    I understand your problem with materialistic thinking and I'm not a fan of that either. But if you throw all logical reasoning out the window on account of that, then you've thrown the baby out with the bathwater as they say.
    Last edited by bsbray, 2nd July 2016 at 00:26.

  24. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (2nd July 2016), Cearna (4th July 2016), Dreamtimer (2nd July 2016), Elen (2nd July 2016), modwiz (2nd July 2016), Wind (2nd July 2016)

  25. #103
    Senior Member Morocco modwiz's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Location
    Nestled in Appalachia
    Posts
    6,720
    Thanks
    40,125
    Thanked 41,242 Times in 6,698 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Novusod View Post
    I am aware of express trains existing in the Early to mid 20th century. To normal people they would think nothing of this line being in the book. But to a Tolkien fan this is very out of character. I have read almost all of Tolkien's other works including Silmarillion and the Lost Tales. Tolkien was a professor of English literature. He had a huge vocabulary and was never at a loss for words to describe the oddities of Middle Earth. Putting express train in the line about the firework dragon is completely out of character for Tolkien's writing style. That word shouldn't be there in the same manner that common vulgarity shouldn't be in the bible. It is something you have to feel to be true rather than having proof that it is true.


    ***
    One thing you should know bsbray is I don't have a very high opinion of the Scientific Method. It was created by the Jesuits to convince people super natural things don't exist. In my opinion the Scientific Method is a declaration of war on spirituality. One of the main proponents of the Scientific Method was Sir Francis Bacon who based his scientific principles on the methodology of the Inquisition. He admired the ways the inquisition could extract confessions from witches. In his book the The New Atlantis Bacon advocated that Mother nature herself should be put on the rack and tortured as a witch until she gave up her secrets. This is not something I approve of so over the years I have backed away from the scientific method.

    http://www.thesouloftheworld.com/the...e-on-the-rack/

    Thinking only along the lines of the Scientific Method puts the human mind in a very small box. It is a box I refuse to be a part of because it is a prison for the mind. If you can't see beyond that box then this thread probably won't be much use to you.
    The scientific method was a way to park us in our left brained thinking. It was helpful to move people out of right brained dominance that led to much superstition. It also led to binary thinking. Proper integration of both, working in tandem is the correct equation, IMO. It was far easier to be a wizard when right brained thinking dominated, too easy. Trinary, or better, cerebral usage is the way forward for us.
    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" -- Voltaire

    "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."-- Eleanor Roosevelt

    "Misery loves company. Wisdom has to look for it." -- Anonymous

  26. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to modwiz For This Useful Post:

    161803398 (15th August 2016), Aragorn (2nd July 2016), bsbray (2nd July 2016), Cearna (4th July 2016), Dreamtimer (2nd July 2016), Elen (2nd July 2016), Novusod (2nd July 2016), Wind (2nd July 2016)

  27. #104
    (account terminated) United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    17,558
    Thanked 12,648 Times in 2,895 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by modwiz View Post
    Proper integration of both, working in tandem is the correct equation, IMO.
    Yes, there has to be balance. And there shouldn't be a contradiction between science and spirituality. Einstein is attributed with a quote along those lines, "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

    The scientific method is just a method to take apart a situation and test to try to find out what is really happening. If someone thinks that this is some kind of trap to brainwash us then they should reconsider what is this magical picture box that they are staring at and typing into using a keyboard. I have to tell you, this magical interactive picture box would not exist without the scientific method. I can't think of any reliable alternative that doesn't produce a lot of nonsense results, whether it's "channeling" or people just using "intuition." Everyone likes to say they have intuition, including myself, but you don't pay your bills or repair your car just using intuition unless you're looking for trouble -- in other words it is not a magic solution that produces all the right answers and we can prove this easily enough.
    Last edited by bsbray, 2nd July 2016 at 00:37.

  28. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (2nd July 2016), Cearna (4th July 2016), Dreamtimer (2nd July 2016), Elen (2nd July 2016), modwiz (2nd July 2016)

  29. #105
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    21st March 2015
    Posts
    434
    Thanks
    908
    Thanked 2,514 Times in 431 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by modwiz View Post
    The scientific method was a way to park us in our left brained thinking. It was helpful to move people out of right brained dominance that led to much superstition. It also led to binary thinking. Proper integration of both, working in tandem is the correct equation, IMO. It was far easier to be a wizard when right brained thinking dominated, too easy. Trinary, or better, cerebral usage is the way forward for us.
    It is a fair criticism but what I advocate is a filtering of fact from fiction using heuristic discernment. The advantage of using discernment over the scientific method is that it is more flexible in adapting to changing situations. I feel that science has over time lead humanity into a rut of circular thinking that we cannot extract ourselves from using the same methods that got us into this rut. Science itself is based on its own set of foundational principles which are assumed to be true but are in fact false. However, it is impossible to disprove any of these foundational principles as long as they are assumed to be true and mutually reinforcing each other. It is impossible to back track and make corrections to the foundations of science based on the way the proofs are structured. They all have to be thrown out wholesale.

    One of the foundational principles of science that we completely have gotten wrong is the nature of the observable universe. Just because we can't observe something doesn't mean it is not there. For a quick example just look at my Avatar.

    How many cubes do you see?

    There is one outer cube and one inner cube.

    In our observable universe we can only see the outer cube:


    Using the scientific method we cannot prove the inner cube exists because we can't observe it. Now what if the inner cube changed places with the outer cube? The formerly outer cube would disappear and we would see the inner cube. However, when the inner and outer cube switched places would not be able to observe the old outer cube anymore. However, we would be able to remember it.

    Here is a little animation to help understand the switch.


    This is kind of what is happening with the Mandela affect. If you can imagine there is an inner and outer and they are replacing each other. Each one of these cubes represents a facet of reality.

    This is the basis of my discernment.

  30. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Novusod For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (2nd July 2016), Cearna (4th July 2016), Dreamtimer (2nd July 2016), Elen (2nd July 2016), modwiz (2nd July 2016)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •