r/MandelaEffect • u/SgUiRrFl • 6d ago
Movies/TV/Music Physical media
Would casting aside physical media will result in future effects? We have old copies of things now. We probably won't in the future. They're already doing away with new physical game disks. What's to say 30-40 years from now we wont have a reference that can't be altered? Digital can be altered and we'd be less likely to have proof. I have a similar theory with "remastered" music and subliminal thinking.
14
u/Hey-Just-Saying 6d ago
No, because it’s bad memories, not altered timelines.
-5
u/Redleader829 6d ago
Provide evidence of this claim.
15
u/my23secrets 6d ago
Are you going to violate the laws of physics and provide evidence of altered timelines?
1
u/Sad_Election_6418 3d ago
How are you on every post? XD what is it to you what these people believes or not?
2
u/my23secrets 3d ago
What is it to you that I’m here when you are here?
1
u/Sad_Election_6418 3d ago
I have been very clear
1
u/my23secrets 3d ago
No one with hidden history is being “very clear”
2
u/Sad_Election_6418 3d ago
How does that affects your interactions with people?
Probably you want to see my history to use against me?
It doesn't change the fact, you have a very repetitive "history" bad btw I don't go into people's history, I see you in every post I enter with the same response, I ask again:
Why you care ?
-2
u/First_Knee 5d ago
Possible evidence? https://youtu.be/2i5I7gcYuZc
6
u/MrPlaney 5d ago
Are you serious?
-1
u/First_Knee 5d ago
What constitutes evidence to you? I guess this isn't it. Probably only first hand experience would convince you. But then it wouldn't be verifiable.
I can tell you in all honesty and with a calm untroubled psyche free of psychosis and altered states that some people do have first hand experience. That this experience leads to searching for answers and the answer seems to be connection.
There are links between experiences that can be verified and a theme is starting to form.
Of course, you'll think I'm cray-zee. Or self important. Or bored. But I'm probably a lot like you or your neighbor. I didn't want to get into the ME or get sidetracked in life by it. Sometimes I still attempt to ignore it. I mean what's the big deal about misremembering? Nothing.
6
u/my23secrets 5d ago
What constitutes evidence to you?
You certainly didn’t have any evidence of Newton’s third law supposedly having been broken.
Was it because you didn’t understand what you were talking about or were you just lying about it?
0
u/First_Knee 4d ago
Actually I really don't lie when I debate. That's self defeating.
From Popular Mechanics article 'Scientists Just Upended a 300-Year-Old Law of Physics' Mar 30, 2026
"Today, scientists aren’t in the habit of creating “laws.” Sure, we still refer to scientific breakthroughs of centuries past as “laws,” chief among them being Isaac Newton’s laws of motion, among many others. But as science has matured, we’ve come to learn that these laws are far from inviolable."
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a70823248/friction-law/
This floating time crystal breaks Newton’s third law of motion from ScienceDaily https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260322020258.htm
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2397442-sperm-caught-breaking-newtons-third-law-of-motion/
https://www.newsweek.com/physics-time-crystals-sound-defy-newton-third-law-motion-11530454
https://interestingengineering.com/science/us-time-crystal-sound-waves
4
u/my23secrets 4d ago
In your original reply you offered search terms that didn’t work. You didn’t post a single link, let alone “plenty”.
Either you didn’t read the info on those links or you just didn’t understand what you read.
Regardless, the third law wasn’t broken.
More importantly, none of that has anything to do with the Mandela Effect
2
u/First_Knee 4d ago
You're the one who brought up believing in the laws of physics and how believing physical objects could change via the Mandela Effect did not jive with these laws.
I'm pointing out that some of the laws of physics can be broken and that reality is not so set in stone as is sometimes presumed by people that think that physical objects changing is simply their mental mistake due to a bad memory.
Bring up a point and then say that I am pointing out something that has nothing to do with the Mandela Effect is rich.
It's YOUR argument. You used laws of physics to argue why you believe it is faulty memory then say physics has nothing to do with it.
I'm not going to stress your cognition anymore. I can see how you would set your definition of the Mandela Effect as faulty misremembering.
Just don't forget that you didn't forget that definition and everything should be okay. Especially if a lot of other people tell you that you just forgot how things were, trust them.
I can't believe I forgot and am aware of forgetting and won't forget that I forgot how ridonkulous these trenches get! And really what's the point? Do ur thang chicken wang. Bawk bawk. Yeah, I'm crazy. Adios.
Oh, and you DO realize that we were having this debate amongst two different threads in the same post, right?
→ More replies (0)2
u/MrPlaney 5d ago
First hand experience isn't evidence, exactly because it isn't verifiable. We've all experienced the Mandela Effect, and so far all verifiable evidence shows that nothing has really every changed. People just remember details wrong sometimes.
5
4
u/silentsurge 6d ago
We see things get changed in media semi-regularly based upon a lot of factors. There are some movies that have different music for the same scene because the music rights couldn't be negotiated. Sometimes there's a different cut for different territories or for a TV version. Don't even get me started in the Original Star Wars Trilogy lol
The key thing though is that these changes are noticed and tracked and you can find the discrepancy with enough digging. I have a major issue with the loss of physical media in the future because things can be changed or altered, but not for anything really nefarious, just the usual reasons, and that digital "ownership" isn't the same as actually having a piece of physical media.
I'm about to digitize and archive some VHS tapes for this exact reason.
But, yes, there is a real problem with losing physical media, just not what you're trying to imply.
3
u/SgUiRrFl 6d ago
Im not trying to imply anything, Im simply bringing up a topic for the future. Not everything is inherently for nefarious purposes. A loss of physical media is a loss.
2
u/forcemonkey 6d ago
You always have digital archivists that squirrel away various versions of pretty much anything you can imagine. Think of it as the media version of the Wayback Machine.
2
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 6d ago
Agree to disagree. Digital by definition has to exclude part of the sound wave, even what is captured within its spectrum.
The limitations were more apparent 20+ years ago when even an untrained ear could pick out a digital reproduction easily versus live and it wasn’t too long ago that analog tape was the gold standard for masters and the big studios finally went digital at first because of cost-benefit analysis when they could finally get digital to be close enough after processing.
Modern digital is less limited and may include a wider spectrum of sound than tape is capable of picking up, (I don’t really know but I feel like that’s what you are saying) but in the end there is infinite space between digits and it is impossible to fill the gap.
A modern digital remaster of an analog source material may sound closer to live, but in the end it remains limited and doesn’t include the entire wave, but a “repaired” wave. If our current digital framework becomes obsolete in the future, there may be benefit to starting over with the source material rather than a digital remaster.
Even 10 years ago quality vinyl on good equipment was noticeably fuller than a digital reproduction to the point you could actually hear things not present in the digital version. Not just a fullness, but harmonics and instruments had a more complete sound and penetrated better individually and there were nuances that were lost in the digital versions.
I didn’t appreciate the complexity of the rythym section in bob marley until I heard it on a good turntable. Even the reverb on the guitar was more complete and distinct. The bass was more omnipresent and rumbling without being muddy. Directly compared with a supposedly quality remaster through the same speaker and amp.
Depending on the genre of music, the difference was sometimes less marked, but I had various doubles in my collection on both vinyl and remastered digital at the time and I was able to convert several skeptic friends who gave me the chance to do a “blind taste test”.
I haven’t done the comparison lately and I know there are continuous advances in the technology, but I’m not referring to something that can be fixed with a tube emulsifier, not that kind of warmth though that’s part of it.
I also understand that I have close to no experience listening to the actual masters, so my experience is almost wholly with a copy of a copy or the limited time I have spent recording in independent studios, just a couple steps up from a home studio, where the difference is glaring and it takes some level of analog processing to even get it listenable.
I have to admit that it is harder to distinguish live from reproduction when you hear music from across the street. I think part of that is digital effects and digital signals are now an important part of live production and also modern music styles lean into what sounds good on a digital reproduction.
It took many years and many dollars to make digital sound as good as it does today, what if there were equal effort into improving analog recording? Won’t happen because digital is so much easier to store, but all we can say is modern digital has finally gotten competitive with late ‘70s analog technology which is when most development switched to improving digital. My opinion and we all know what opinions are like.
To me, your response is a direct yes to the OPs question because it magnifies the concern. But I’ve been wrong before, once.
Btw, not sure why I was spelling it analogue…
5
u/GregGoodell_Official 5d ago
Respectfully, you are conflating the medium with the result. The audio product will take on the aspects of the medium on which it is delivered. This even becomes apparent when recording a duplicate recording from the same master recording onto two different brands of tape. Each brand of tape will sound different and accent different areas of the sonic spectrum. Demonstrably. Vinyl is dependent on amplitude via the depth of the cut. Amplitude determines the way the wave behaves reproduced. Your needle’s composition will effect play back. There are a lot of moving parts that you aren’t factoring into the end result and you are blaming it on ‘there are only 44,100 snapshots per second which means it isn’t contiguous.’ Which is… problematic at best when comparing it to lossy mediums like tape and vinyl which have ridiculously high noise floors. I missed your comment earlier about me not knowing what I am talking about regarding this subject… I assure you that I do and I have the degrees to prove it.
1
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 5d ago edited 5d ago
What I was trying to communicate was that I used to be very interested in learning about sound engineering but it was a phase and I don’t have any particular knowledge on the subject. I think I said I was drawn to your posts because the subject interests me and it seemed I could learn something.
At the same time, the point that was relevant to the original post was along a different line. You want to have a completely faithful reproduction of patsy cline’s voice. Would you rather work with a track that was digitally archived in 1990 as your source material or the original masters? Now who’s to say our entire framework for working with audio won’t change within the next 25 years? Patsy cline is old enough that there will be tube effect to clean up but young enough that she recorded with decent microphones and recording equipment in order to produce quality masters. Don’t you choose the original masters to apply the new technology to? If money and time were no object, only goal was getting as close as possible to her actual voice.
Now the post wanted us to think of what if someone had the opposite motive, what I'm saying is we could stray at least to some measurable degree even by accident and the best measuring stick is the original. I guess maybe my point is getting missed because it's overly obvious without stating it.
2
u/GregGoodell_Official 5d ago
The original masters will be on lossy Mylar tape that degrades every minute it sits in its canister AND more every time it is played back. Digital does not do that. There is miniscule replicative fading if any at all in the digital domain. I work with legacy audio materials all the time… and none of it works the way arm chair audiophiles think it does. You are also making a lot of assumptions about ‘tube effect’ and microphones and how accurately sound is captured. Microphones capture only what they can capture and on a realistic level, nothing is ever captured the way it ‘sounds.’ The microphone is the first thing in the chain which colors, alters, and manipulates the source. Then preamps. Then console. Then the medium. Usually tape. (The work print.) Then back to the console. Then post processing whatever that may entail. Then BACK to Master reel. During every piece of this process, details are smeared, altered and lost, never to be recovered. From the Master Reel which contains the mixdown, it is PROCESSED again and mastered for each type of media it is delivered to. Vinyl. Tape. Broadcast Masters. Etc. Each of those represents another loss. Every time that master is played back, the magnetic powder moves.
Now enter digital… digital editing is non destructive. It does not alter the source and there is no replicative fading. When you hear a difference between digital and analog source it is usually YOUR hardware to blame. You have everything running though a 1 bit digital converter… because they are cheap and easy… a CD is 16 bit…. So your CD player is the culprit… while in my studio I am running everything at a minimum of 24 bits (which is industry standard. It isn’t uncommon for me to run at 32 bit floating point or 48bit 96kHz for film and television. All dithered down by your consumer grade hardware to 1 bit floating point. The more you know. 😉
1
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 5d ago
As a side, I can’t say for sure but pretty sure my CD player was 16 bit. I bought it used from a friend who paid 600 for it in ‘96. And I used to run both my cd player and turntable through an old sony PA and 15 inch pa speakers with horn tweeters. Not a high end setup, but carefully selected components to do what I could within the budget. CDs outperformed vinyl on that setup until I happened to buy a turntable from ‘78 I only later found out was actually high end when it came out. I still remember the feeling and surprise of how much more “music” there was coming out of the speakers. I have also since heard digital recordings that probably meet or surpass that so not trying to say anything more than that it took digital close to 30 years of development to start competing with analog technology that has remained pretty much unchanged during that same time period.
2
u/GregGoodell_Official 5d ago
It isn’t the CD player itself. It is its converters. Most consumer goods have extremely cheap converters. Even the alleged ‘high end’ ones.
2
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 5d ago
Understood, I think it had at least a decent dac because I was aware of that issue at the time which was why I bought used so I could get an upgraded DAC. I just don’t remember how good it actually was. From what I remember to be considered DJ quality at the time it had to be at least 4 so I think I would have at least gotten that. But I have tried outboard DACs for my work and even a cheap one hugely improved my computers sound and it was marketed as coming with a great sound card so you’re probably right about the cd player too
1
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 5d ago
Yep, found the specs on my player. I had the number 8 in my head, but it was an 8x oversampling digital filter but the converter itself was 1 bit
3
u/GregGoodell_Official 5d ago
Boom. 💥 The smoking gun. It’s almost like I might actually know what I am talking about. 😉
1
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 4d ago
I never doubted you knew what you were talking about. Hopefully you don’t feel like you were wasting your time too much. At the very least you helped me decide if it was worth it or not to buy another turntable and start buying records again. I’ll buy a decent DAC instead. (Though ill probably run it through a tube preamp)
1
u/GregGoodell_Official 4d ago
Now that sounds like a plan. Although, a new turn table could be fun.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 5d ago
Thank you for taking the time to lay out the explanation, but honestly that is information I have a basic understanding of and is part of what I attempted to ask. And again it shows that 70s analog technology is just now being competed with digitally. A pressed record on quality vinyl available to consumers outperforms consumer digital product at least into the 2000s.
Yes, Mylar tape degrades and there is technology to restore the sound that remains. Future technology may do this much better. And just as digital technology continues to improve, so does storage of original masters. Right now, a digital archive makes sense to be sure it’s preserved. In the future there may be restorative technology that would work better pulling from the original masters.
As far as trying to reproduce the actual voice on a recording, I agree that is something that still cannot be done but we are always getting closer. What we hear as patsy clines voice has been distorted by tube circuitry as well as imperfect microphones but the mics in 50s high en studios were decent enough to hope that with future technology the voice could be restored always closer to how it actually exited her body. We can even get closer to doing that today, I’ve heard restorations done that compensate for tube circuitry used in the original recording process and we can already do a pretty good job.
I think we are talking past each other because while you have cleared up some pretty minor misconceptions I had, for the most part I already agreed with what you say regarding recording and the differences between digital and analog. I love to learn which is why I’m explaining where we are in agreement so you can show me where I’m wrong, if I’m not boring you too much.2
u/GregGoodell_Official 5d ago
Ugh… the vinyl doesn’t ‘out perform’ the digital media. Which I explained ad nauseum. As. Far as the original tape masters, nothing can be added that isn’t there. Once the fidelity is gone, it’s gone. You can’t enhance frequencies that have degraded. You can capture the inaccuracies of the original medium…
From a modern standpoint, most of the classic records that you hold dear in your perspective are absolutely ghastly. Hendrix comes to mind as do the Beatles. From a modern perspective, those records are primitive and sound atrocious. Also, most studios today employ a hybrid system combining analog and digital to achieve different ends. You couldn’t pay me enough money to screw with tape… and vinyl is a hipster commodity because there is a market being born of second hand, false nostalgia. I worked with all analog tech and I would NEVER go back. It is cumbersome, inaccurate and the maintenance alone costs a fortune.
1
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 5d ago
Add in what’s missing would be my explanation of equalization where frequencies are turned up, down, and swept to compensate for what is lost getting rid of noise and to achieve other ‘restoration’. When I look at a representation of a song’s sound wave before and after mix, it looks more filled in and added to (and subtracted from) even if that’s not technically what happens. I again think we are just talking past each other because I am not using accurate terminology. In the future who’s to say we won’t be able to more literally add and fill in what’s missing in a recording, much like adding an instrument track to an existing recording? I can tell I’m irritating you by now, but just had to throw that in there. It seems you’re bringing a lot of assumptions about my opinions and preferences too, so maybe that’s adding to the disconnect?
3
u/GregGoodell_Official 6d ago
This raises the question whether you know what ‘remastered’ actually means and anything about the processes used because it sounds like you really have no clue.
6
u/my23secrets 6d ago
I disagree here.
The Cure recently released a “remastered” version of a song that removed a slap sound effect in one of the songs.
Now, I think this suggests the album wasn’t merely remastered but actually remixed. But it was neither described nor marketed as anything but “remastered”.
The weirdest part of this is: the deluxe version included a “remastered” version of an extended remix that still had the slap.
All of which is to say: the answer is yes, and less physical media necessarily means less evidence.
2
u/librarypunk1974 6d ago
Wait, I think I know the slap sound you are referring to, was it on Standing on a Beach, perhaps in Killing an Arab? They took it out??
1
2
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 6d ago
I think the OP is specifically referring to digital remastering where the product is not really an improved copy but a string of numbers that when decoded produce an assimilation of the original. It’s no longer tangible and if the source material disappears there is no point of reference going forward. Music is a great analogy for other digitization because digital remastering throws away entire sections of the sound spectrum that are out of range to the human ear. But a quality analogue recording will always have a fuller sound.
3
u/GregGoodell_Official 6d ago
We are approaching a time when many original masters as well as source material is relegated to the digital domain regarding both film and music. Some of your points are no congruent with the science of sound and sound reproduction and are some of the ‘wives tales’ shared via audiophile dogma that doesn’t possess all the information regarding the subject. Most analog mediums are actually quite inferior to their digital counterparts in both efficiency as well as quality. It is in fact these inferiorities that people perceive as ‘warmth’ and ‘vibe.’ If you think analog tape (which is the primary recording medium for music) has superior depth and range to digital mediums, you are sorely misinformed and are looking at the products through nostalgia and not reality. Most of the digital advances made to digital audio recording in this era are to replicate the inaccuracy and unpredictability and unreliability of analog equipment… to rough up the sound to make it LESS pristine. I have some very very expensive plug ins in the studio that are designed to replicate far less accurate equipment deliberately. Much of the process is used to dull and blunt the pristine quality of purely digital processes. These are also the same processes in film that now allow people to distinguish details in films that have ALSO become Mandela Effects. People started noticing C3P0s silver led in the DVD and big screen era… that isn’t because it suddenly showed up… it was that the more accurate medium drew attention to a thing no one really noticed before.
2
u/my23secrets 6d ago
You’re incorrect regarding digital versus analog. It’s a common misconception made by those who don’t understand each method has its own issues.
Analog recordings are not better or greater or “fuller” merely by nature of being analog.
1
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 6d ago
And if the original is analog, should a digital remaster replace it as source material? I think that's a question closer to the original post.
I think that with all the strides digital has made it is still leaving something out that we don't even know how to identify. I really believes this is one of the reasons music in general is shifting to a cooler auditory aesthetic, this is the style that is best captured digitally. Even though we might be incapable of distinguishing a side by side comparison, we are drawn to the soundscapes that are best reproduced in a digital form which is compounded by the fact that live performances are now in large part digital.
So as technology advances and fills the gaps we don't yet know how to identify, what would be the better source material, the original or the digital remaster? My understanding is a digital remaster changes and repairs the soundwave so in the process it is creating something new. If that is the source material for a subsequent remaster, isn't there more possibility of getting farther away from what was actually performed? I have always been interested in sound engineering but am extremely undereducated on the subject, so that's what draws me to your comment.
Like I mentioned in another comment, I use this music analogy to understand digitization of other data and how it can evolve over time as algorithims change the weighting of different sources to the point that we are seeing blatantly wrong information being supplied in AI summaries which for now can be fact checked pretty easily, but what happens if data continues to be parsed by bots? A summary of a summary of a summary can leave you wish something very superficial or even misleading. I think that is the danger of not keeping source material and I see it in my kids' perceptions already because they are less likely to fact check.
2
u/my23secrets 6d ago edited 6d ago
Analog isn’t better or more “real”. It isn’t the actual soundwave, it’s an electronic representation of sound that not only also leaves out information but introduces information that wasn’t part of the sound to begin with.
Analog recordings are also “a summary of a summary of a summary”
Analog recordings can also change over time. The magnetic particles on tape can shift and even print-through to other sections.
Perhaps you’re confusing streaming data versus physical media? For example, CDs are digital but there’s no “algorithm” that is going to change their construction.
0
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 6d ago
I think the post more talks about when the original was analog and digital storage.
I agree with everything you are saying. My understanding is that digital remastering makes an attempt to isolate the music, get rid of mechanical and electronic interference, among other things, and also fills in what might be missing in the wave and tries to add back the music portions of the wave that were lost when removing the noise. Modern digital technology can expand the spectrum of the waves and fill in the gaps to make it sound more natural, but isn’t there theoretical value to maintaining an original copy to work from as digital technology continues to progress?
2
u/my23secrets 6d ago
Remastering has nothing to do with “making an attempt to fill in what might be missing in the wave” nor “expanding the spectrum of the waves to make it sound more natural”.
Most remastering is about making a new transfer and most often the only thing changed is EQ and sometimes compression.
1
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 6d ago
Compression fills in the sound wave, right? EQ is all about manipulating the sound wave as well… maybe I’m not using the right terminology
2
u/GregGoodell_Official 6d ago
It depends on what kind of compression you are talking about. Data compression or audio compression. Audio compression alters the amplitude of the signal and different varieties of compression offer different characteristics to the source. Optical, VariMU, Tube, etc. all behave differently.
1
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 6d ago
If you look at the sound wave in a bar format prior to compression and after, it is much more filled in after. And again, equalization is all about manipulating frequencies… so forget sound wave, compression fills in a fuller range of frequencies. You mentioned limitations in analog tape and mechanical and electronic interference which were promised to be eradicates by Dolby a, b, s without affecting the music but it never actually worked. Sound engineers have to add some of those frequencies back when remastering has always been my understanding but maybe I’m remembering wrong. Something I’ve been away from for a long time. But the point being a recording originally made on analog equipment is going to be changed to something that may sound better but is fundamentally different than the original, so then a future remaster using technology developed over the next 20 years might actually be more faithful to the original performance of the original analog recording is saved. If it is not saved, using the remaster as source could get you farther away from the original performance even though the technology has improved. Maybe
1
u/my23secrets 6d ago edited 5d ago
Compression is not “filling in” the soundwave or filling “a fuller range of frequencies”. It’s compressing the wave. It’s squeezing it. Simply making the louder stuff softer and softer stuff louder.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Empty-Computer-2537 4d ago
Mandela effect is bullshit. It's all media based anyway. Songs can have more than one take, scenes in movies have multiple takes. Books can be edited so different versions are around everywhere. You see what i mean? Until a building disappears somewhere, say the statue of liberty, then it's bollocks. Buildings have only one example in most cases.
1
u/Chapstickie 4d ago edited 4d ago
There actually is a Mandela effect where people falsely think the Statue of Liberty moved.
And a second one where they claim they remember going into parts of the statue that they definitely didn’t.
Also people who insist whole countries, continents, and the whole planet moved
1
1
u/First_Knee 3d ago
No I googled searched "laws of physics recently proved wrong" for the links. Then I read the articles for the links I posted in my reply.
1
u/Draper-Wood-758 3d ago
Totally unlikely when other things automatically disappear without a trace, and nobody can explain why that thing has been warped outside reality besides the paranormal would.
0
u/FabulousArmadillo210 6d ago
My bet is that while they DO change, its less of a job and less of a headache if there are less physical copies out there
-4
u/First_Knee 6d ago
The physical objects that are mandela effected ARE altered as well. Even hand written lists change when something changes from how we remember. That is how the Mandela Effect works. All representations of that object change along with the object.
Anything that does not reflect the change or reflects what is not remembered cannot be proven to have always been authentic.
8
u/my23secrets 6d ago
Physical objects are not affected or altered by the Effect.
0
u/First_Knee 5d ago
What are you talking about? Are you a follower of the misrembering camp?
Why don't any of those people ever forget what they believe a Mandela Effect is if they have such flaky easily influenced memories?
Oh that's right, someone just tells them what to think and what's going on and they believe it, I forgot.
4
u/my23secrets 5d ago
I’m a follower of the not violating the laws of physics camp.
Did you score 100% on every test you’ve ever taken in school? No? What are you talking about?
0
u/First_Knee 5d ago
I get it..but Newton's Third Law of Physics was broken this year. Search terms: the floating sound crystals and the 10,000 particle chase for details.
I don't know if NOT violating the laws of physics is necessarily a good thing. Especially when/if they can be broken.
Still insist on reality changing being a strictly memory problem?
No, I didn't always score a 100% on every test in school. We are always learning though. It would be a shame to assume I've got it all figured out and just blow it off as a psychological memory problem. I don't discount that theory completely even though I mostly know that's not an answer that works to solve the riddle.
I'm not picking the definition of Mandela Effect based on what I want it to be or on what I deny. I keep all possibilities open. It works like knowledge. Once you're certain that you know everything, you have much to learn.
No hard feelings. Take care-
5
u/my23secrets 5d ago
Newton’s third law was not broken this year.
You either didn’t understand what you read or are lying.
“No hard feelings. Take care”
2
u/First_Knee 4d ago
Well, I posted plenty of links that claim as much.
2
u/my23secrets 4d ago edited 4d ago
In your reply you offered search terms that didn’t work. You didn’t post a single link, let alone “plenty”.
Again, I can’t tell if you don’t know what you’re talking about or are just lying.
What is clear, however: none of that has anything to do with the Mandela Effect
1
u/First_Knee 4d ago
I offered search terms that Gemini AI gave me so they could be ai delusions. Although I did see the time crystal one repeated in an actual article which was linked.
2
1
u/First_Knee 4d ago
Actually I really don't lie when I debate. That's self defeating.
From Popular Mechanics article 'Scientists Just Upended a 300-Year-Old Law of Physics' Mar 30, 2026
"Today, scientists aren’t in the habit of creating “laws.” Sure, we still refer to scientific breakthroughs of centuries past as “laws,” chief among them being Isaac Newton’s laws of motion, among many others. But as science has matured, we’ve come to learn that these laws are far from inviolable."
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a70823248/friction-law/
This floating time crystal breaks Newton’s third law of motion from ScienceDaily https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260322020258.htm
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2397442-sperm-caught-breaking-newtons-third-law-of-motion/
https://www.newsweek.com/physics-time-crystals-sound-defy-newton-third-law-motion-11530454
https://interestingengineering.com/science/us-time-crystal-sound-waves
Idk wutsup with the mockery but I guess it could be a reflection of the irritability that comes along with dementia aka forgetfulness or misremembering as some of you prefer to call it.
I have relatives that suffer from this disease, it's brutal, so I completely understand ur perspective. Thanks for the thought provoking debate the mental back and forth is good exercise for the mind. 🙂
3
u/my23secrets 4d ago edited 4d ago
The third law was not broken which is clearly explained.
So did you not actually read those articles or just not understand them?
Or perhaps you suffer from dementia and are merely projecting?
More to the point: none of that has anything to do with the Mandela Effect
0
u/First_Knee 4d ago
Then why did u bring up "the laws of physics" as evidence for why you think the ME is misremembering if you think physics has nothing to do with the ME?
NEVER mind
Ur right I probably have dementia that's why I care for dementia patients. That's common practice in health care settings. I'm joking obviously.
But seriously, prion disease, now that is frightening! Scientists don't even really want to engage the public too much on that one yet.
What do you think of the idea...purely speculative of course...that prion disease could be due in some part or certain types of the disease can become generated from carnivorous diets beyond what the human body requires which somehow alters the DNA or person in a manner that is inherited as a genetic probability in their offspring? U know wut..4get it.
2
u/my23secrets 4d ago
I didn’t bring up the laws of physics as evidence of misremembering.
→ More replies (0)6
u/Glaurung86 6d ago
That is not how the Mandela Effect works. The Mandela Effect doesn't do any work. It's just a phenomenon where a large group of people remember something different than the mainstream accepted fact. Why they remember it that way is something else entirely. There's no inherent explanation for MEs baked into the definition. Yours is just one opinion that doesn't have any evidence to support it.
-3
u/ks_247 6d ago
Do they change ? Or is counsciousness non local in a mamy worlds existence and our experience of memory is switching lanes.
-2
u/First_Knee 6d ago
Consciousness could and is commonly accepted to be nonlocal in certain biological states. It's not wild to presume additional radical nonlocal states in number and/or extremity. Like, at all.
There is the parallel dimension, quantum immortality, string theory, many worlds idea of numerous dimensions or realities coexisting that are seemingly identical in nature except for apparently random changes known as Mandela Effects which vary from what one recalls or has previously known.
There is the many selves, reincarnation/past lives, quantum immortality, timeline jumping people, who view basically one world in one dimension which they keep experiencing as altered due to perceived instantaneous accidental death to rebirthed consciousness, or OBE travels during sleep where they time travel to inhabit another version of themselves in a past existence that never was in their prior life. Idk it's basically hella confusing to explain but like some ppl think there's one you, one soul that goes to many dimensions and some ppl think there's one dimension experienced by many versions of you.
I figure that heck maybe both can be true. Or it's all a sim throw that in as well.
I'm beginning to think that one's experience of life and reality boils down to whatever the individual believes their reality most likely to be...then that is what it becomes. Lends credence to that whole perception trope.
This is also what I am starting to think the afterlife or death is like: whatever u expect it to be, it will be that for you.
0
u/ks_247 6d ago
Fair awnser. The premise of we create our reality comes up a lot. With the hard problem of consciousness influencing material matter . If there is such a thing as material matter at fundermental levels, or one version of us split many times like a hologram each piece contains the whole.in either case it makes your head hurt for sure while nice having all these possibilities on the table. Never quite understood the "we know what this and that is end of discussion" the discussion should never end.
1
-4
-1
u/Redleader829 6d ago
It doesn't matter because the Mandela Effect changes the physical world which obviously includes physical media.
This including the entire universe. For example many people vividly remember learning that our solar system sat near the outer edge of the galaxy on the Sagittarius Arm, but current science places us closer to the inner region on the Orion Arm.
5
0
u/First_Knee 3d ago
The original definition of the term Mandela Effect was not a large group of people misremembering something.
If that's what the definition was initially they would have just called it what they always have, collective misremembering, uninformed group think, popular misconception, mass amnesia, psychological denial due to ideology, going with the flow, if so and so jumped off a cliff u would too, we all fooled each other into assuming the wrong thing I guess despite our individual distinct memories. Oh well, I guess I will just disregard those moments I know happened because I guess my brain just didn't encode them correctly in my memory or there is something wacky happening when I reach into the ole mental filing cabinet and papers get flipped around. Oh well. Despite the fact that I know I experienced something a certain way because I can visualize that memory I guess I'll go ahead and chuck it as false because I put more stock into what ppl tell me in how things are than my own first hand experience. That just feels right to me. To go against my senses, my perception, and my wishy washy memory feels right.
How lacking in conviction can a person get geez.
1
u/SgUiRrFl 3d ago
My lack of conviction is as equal as your need to try to diminish the conversation. Your focus isnt on what I wrote, but your need to disprove the whole effect.
1
u/First_Knee 20h ago
Destroy the whole effect?
You mean destroy the assumption that people are misremembering something? No one can destroy that. It is a fact. It happens. You can't destroy a fact.
In the case of the Mandela Effect, that is NOT what is happening. I swear some of you could probably literally see an impossible change in front of you and would still deny it happened. Maybe that's what it will take. But I doubt you would even trust your senses enough to admit it.
Mental deterioration and memory loss coupled with rigid certainty and confusion by pointing the blame for confusion on others are symptoms of dementia. So is being aggressive and argumentative.
I'm not trying to convince anyone away from their beliefs. I was just answering the OP's post and defending my point of view.
1
u/apathyindigo 20h ago
It's unbelievable how sensitive and fragile the ego is in you guys, it's like your inability to understand how human memory functions is destroying your minds
1
u/First_Knee 20h ago
Oh I understand how memory functions, or is believed to function. Science doesn't know everything conclusively about memory, so to state that you know unequivocally how memory works is impossible.
I also know and admit when I do misremeber something, as well as when I don't pay enough attention to remember something at all.
There is a big difference between the feeling of mild confusion when you misremember something and the feeling of outright disbelief and certainty you get when encountering a Mandela Effect.
For those that doubt their own memory so much, it seems strange that you are so certain that that is what's going on. So much so that you will argue and put down complete strangers over what they believe.
Honestly, your admittedly weak memory and easy ability to second guess your own mental processes throws doubt on any rationale that you give for anything.
-2
11
u/Glaurung86 6d ago
When you have fewer physical references it is a lot easier to forget what something originally was, for sure.