Scientists create a hole in time.

[arrfep]

The scientists created a lens of not just light, but time. Their method splits light, speeding up one part of light and slowing down another. It creates a gap and that gap is where an event is masked.
"You kind of create a hole in time where an event takes place," said study co-author Alexander Gaeta, director of Cornell's School of Applied and Engineering Physics. "You just don't know that anything ever happened."

?????

 

[T_Yamamoto]

Why are our scientists trying to create a hole in time when they should be genetically modifying animals into Pokémon?

i know, tell me about it

 

[bfdd]

Yeah I read this and thought "lol they're stupid, what hole in time?" all they did was create a blind spot for luminous observation. WOW THAT'S SO NEAT... not.

 

[sandorski]

And this is so much easier to believe in than God?

If it can be repeated, YES. Why wouldn't it be?

 

[Red Squirrel]

And this is special how?

If something happens in front of me and only lasts a billionth of a billionth of a second, nothing special has to be done for me not to see it. My eyes and brain simply wont be able to process it. We see at around 25 frames per second, if it happens in between, then I wont see it.

I have also found a way to mask events that last multiple seconds. Hey look a squirrel! *grabs phone sitting on the table, runs*. Start the car!!!

 

[bfdd]

And this is special how?

If something happens in front of me and only lasts a billionth of a billionth of a second, nothing special has to be done for me not to see it. My eyes and brain simply wont be able to process it. We see at around 25 frames per second, if it happens in between, then I wont see it.

I have also found a way to mask events that last multiple seconds. Hey look a squirrel! *grabs phone sitting on the table, runs*. Start the car!!!

we see drastically more than 25 fps, don't believe that non-sense. though it doesn't matter because all they did was create a "hole" in observation of light, oh noes. time doesn't exist, it's only a measurement of energy expenditure. there is no time field or anything like that, that's why they didn't create a hole in time. it doesn't exist for them to put a hole in.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

I also created a hole in time. I hammered a nail trough my clock

 

[Red Squirrel]

we see drastically more than 25 fps, don't believe that non-sense. though it doesn't matter because all they did was create a "hole" in observation of light, oh noes. time doesn't exist, it's only a measurement of energy expenditure. there is no time field or anything like that, that's why they didn't create a hole in time. it doesn't exist for them to put a hole in.

Yeah I think the 25 is what we "properly" see, and probably varies from person to person. Like, I can see a 60hz CRT or certain LED Christmas lights flashing, which means I'm seeing past 25. Though chances are if an image flashed on the screen for one of those 60hz cycles I would not be able to process what it was very well.

 

[bfdd]

Yeah I think the 25 is what we "properly" see, and probably varies from person to person. Like, I can see a 60hz CRT or certain LED Christmas lights flashing, which means I'm seeing past 25. Though chances are if an image flashed on the screen for one of those 60hz cycles I would not be able to process what it was very well.

It really just has a lot to do with training your eyes and brain. Do you think you can see a 80mph base ball traveling at you very easily? No you can't, but go stand in the batters box for a few hours watching 80 mph pitches fly by, while taking a few swings and they'll start to "slow" down as you see more "fps".

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Yeah I think the 25 is what we "properly" see, and probably varies from person to person. Like, I can see a 60hz CRT or certain LED Christmas lights flashing, which means I'm seeing past 25. Though chances are if an image flashed on the screen for one of those 60hz cycles I would not be able to process what it was very well.

LCDs dont have a refresh rate.

 

[Kadarin]

And this is so much easier to believe in than God?

No, it's equally easy. Just as it is to believe in Xenu or the Tooth Fairy. The question you should be asking is whether or not such belief is a valid reflection of reality.

In the case of these experiments, presumably they are repeatable with identical results, so "belief" technically isn't needed given that the data is verifiable. Believe or don't believe, the result is the same.

If, however, everyone stopped believing in God, God would cease to exist as even an idea (over quite some time as children stop getting brainwashed/indoctrinated).

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Thank god I'm an atheist.

 

[GundamW]

Geronimo!!!