I can't believe more people are not familiar with this. This going into slo mo for a few seconds is well known among people that do lots of intense things. I have done it many times and I do believe it allows you to think & react faster. I also agree this experiment is junk. It's not really even an experiment, it is more of a demonstration and not even a good one at that.
It would only induce the effect if his arm was moving back and forth across his area of vision. I beleive it was stationary at the time the person who was dropped viewed it. In dealing with the perception of time this was a good experiment. A body in motion is experiencing time at a different rate or way than a body that is not. I think that is what they were trying to get at. I see the experiment as pretty sound. I think you may have misunderstood it.
@lawless101aa07 "A body in motion is experiencing time at a different rate"
You mean relative to those not moving. However since his arm, as you say, was not moving relative to the person falling, it also "experienced time at a different rate", specifically at the exact same rate as the person falling. Hence, NO.
I work with POV all the time. This experiment was extremely flawed as far as science goes.
The reason that the individual colors become visible is because they have been spread over a larger and constantly changing geometric region - Each color is not necessarily interpreted on every given revolution - you may interpret the red after every 2 or 3 revolutions. It also depends where you focus.
You can't achieve the same effect with an object that is stationary relative to the observer unless the observers reflexes (or perceptions of time) increase.
@scrfce123 "is not moving in relation to their body. "
actually you mean eyes or head. Which in the case of the experiment was not the case. Also any movement is aggravated by the fact that the brain might not be able to cancel movements of the eye when falling as it normally does.
Only given that the image of the device if fixed in the same position on the retina, then yes, otherwise the effect is explained by mundane persistence of vision.
@DayfallKat Yes, I agree. Pretty much a summary of what I was trying to say. I probably wasn't specific enough though. That said, you would be getting a much more pronounced effect with the wand than with the wrist mounted device.
@scrfce123 The wand has much LESS of a POV effect because the colors are in the same space. Alternating (moving) lights are easier to detect than alternating colors.
I was really looking for the reletivity theory answer, not brain warp with drugs answer. Can time almost stop at near light speed? I guess the answer is in theory yes. Then like superman - fly faster than light and go BACK in time..... haha But yes it's still relative to ones perception.
@IronHorsez88 Your time will always go as normal. The faster you go, the faster time around you will go. You could go to the past somewhere else if you travel faster than light. If you curve space past vertical then time might loop and you can go back in the same place. Watch the movie "Primer" for what that might look like.
Well, I wouldn't call this bad science because in PRINCIPAL they were trying to get a measurable result, the problem is experimental error, an artefact of measuring that must be corrected for.
People can be quite insulted to be accused of "bad science" when they merely failed to factor in the effect of vibration.
On the other hand, this would NOT have happened if the original tester had used a Control i.e. all the effect of falling minus the fear/adrenaline.
This is in fact a good experiment, to spite all the variables, at least it does it's best to simulate a true fear response.
Ideally you could point a gun at their head, that would get them REALLY afraid but even threatening with an unloaded gun is unethical and very illegal.
The consent aspect is the hardest part. Perhaps an arachnophobia sufferer undergoing exposure therapy could take a look at some numbers in a stable environment?
The problem with administering adrenaline (besides it being very dangerous) is the assumption that adrenaline IS the entire "fight of flight" response or whether it is just one of the many responses the body makes.
Maybe when falling with fear not only adrenaline is released but within the brain itself there are other subtle changes.
Best simulate the ENTIRE fight-or-flight response, not just the adrenaline aspect.
Time must slow down because we have time dilation.
Could the spacetime continuum have symmetry and geometry? Newton believed Time was a thing in itself and connected to motion and Einstein believed there was something missing from quantum mechanics. In my video The Paradox of Schrodingers Cat an artist view it is Time that is the Hidden Variable.
first off, you are confusing the PERCEPTION of the flow of time with Special Relativity, which can be measured by devices that dont have perception, namely Atomic Clocks
Secondly, you are technobabbling, and although you may sound smart to a large amount of people, however to people that know about the subjects you mention (and i am one of them) you sound like a poorly written spam email
Sir, you got it completely wrong. Period. I don't even want to write more because obviously, to explain it to you, it would take a lot of characters and time...
Well I did read an article in the UK science mag "The New Scientist" about the brain's perception of time.
The conclusions was visually there was a problem with saccades but the tentative conclusion was perception both sped up AND slowed down.
That is during say a violent attack the sense input goes up->overwhelming->things seem to happen faster. Yet when the memories are recited the volume of memories gives the illusion like filming at high speed then play back at normal speed.
"most people have a hard time subjectively measuring the DURATION of time"
Well, you could have a device that runs at a different speed when they are falling, then ask if they think the device was running faster or slower or the same.
"... if the mind can process visual input faster during a fight/flight response."
Yes, and it failed to show that, for the reasons stated in my video.
What this experiment is trying to determine is if the brain (or at least the visual cortex) goes into "overdrive" when under stress/fear response to see what it could not see otherwise be seen.
Definite perception of duration of time is a more complex thought process that usually relies on counting in your head and is IMHO a different issue.
Also persistence of human vision is not absolute, I suggest you read up on Saccades and Saccade masking.
I don't know, if a clock was ticking too fast could you honestly be able to tell just by looking/listening? No, too subjective. Also this would be effected by memory elongation.
"Yes, and it failed to show that, for the reasons stated in my video."
No, all you did was prove that the experiment was inadequate, nothing has been proven/shown yet, this experiment needs to be repeated and control for vibration.
This is all GOOD science, i.e. pointing out areas for improvement.
You don't ask the people afterwords to recall what they saw. Their estimation of the device's speed is made while they are looking at it. Sure they could lie or re-evaluate. Perhaps push one of three buttons while in free fall.
Getting someone drunk would also provide results for the same reason. Not POV effects.
They did claim on that show to "prove" it. The layperson has a hard enough time understanding the scientific method.
Trying to get test subjects to make precise subjective judgements as they are falling through the air is much harder then just spotting a definitive number or shape and remembering it for 10 seconds.
Seriously, if you were told "measure 5 seconds" would you not count in you head? Without counting (taking advantage of human sense of rhythm) I couldn't give any accuracy.
The problem here is we need a DEFINITIVE measurement, not a subjective one like "how long did it FEEL like you fell for" as that is open to far too many machinations of thought.
You do have a point about the experiment not being all that well thought out, however IMHO he would have to be shaking at a high frequency for your explanation to work.... do you have any idea how fast you are swinging that flashing toy of yours? so I would say your demonstration was poor as well.
By the way you said it was spatially spread out not "tempooraly" like those yummy fried veggies and shrimp at the Japanese restaurant? LOL "temporally" is the word...
To demonstrate the point in an obvious way, I had to move the flashing toy very fast for an extended amount of time. For the real experiment, only a slight sudden movement for a very brief time would have been required.
While I do have the technological knowledge to disprove their claim of "the only way", I don't feel a scientific investigation is necessary.
I did mean spatially (in the view of the observer).
I also had a problem with the 'near death' part. The test person obviously didnt think the experiment was dangerous and probably was a thrill seeker to begin with. The second test must have been much less thrilling than the first so the adrenalin rush must have been smaller.
i have to ask if you have ever dropped 12 stories in a free fall on more than one occasion. the amount of adrenaline that runs through his body the second time would probably be pretty close to that of the first time. My prime example would be Carnival rides...prefectly safe, lots of adrenaline, perception of danger, and although people don't get as freaked out after the first ride, even on the same day, they do learn to control it. otherwise rides would have been abandonded out of boredom.
Great video. I had swallowed that initially without thinking of the movement being the factor. Your demonstrated the point perfectly, and I could see the colours when you swung that device.
Nonono, he's not slowing down TIME, he's slowing down his own PERCEPTION of time.
Think of Neo from the matrix. He slows down his perception. He doesn't move any faster in his slowed down view of time, but he can see where the bullets are and effectively dodge them.
Also, having a headmounted counter makes it more difficult for the body to sense that it's in danger because you can't see as well that you're falling to your doom.
Good call. I was wondering if someone would catch that. From my experiments, not that much movement is necessary. One slight jerk of his arm, like when he was released or when he hit the net, would do it also.
A head mounted display would fix this. But naturally by moving your eye you can produce the same effect as moving the arm but would be independent of the effects of sudden acceleration.
So this would mean that a head mounted display including an Eyetracker device would do the trick. Perhaps the whole contraption would become too heavy leading to possible neck injuries. Go nano-technology, go! :)
BTW, these effects occur in the retina, as does some simple visual processing. These are simple neural nets unlikely to be affected by any CNS "general panic" state.
Good point. The experiment is badly flawed. Good demonstration of exactly why.
I have seen an art work based on this visual latent image effect. It has a static column of bright LEDs and if you stared at it that's all you saw. However, if your view scanned across it you could read "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".
I think we're arguing over semantics. If you measure time by the ability of your mind to process information, then yes,it would seem that time is going slower because you're in a heightened state. Your body plays tricks with time happens all the time, like when you're listening to a boring speech and time seems to slow down or when you're anxious to go somewhere and that last 5 minutes seems like hours.
But, the guy kept saying "measuring if time slows down" which is absurd.
Time is relative, but the experiment that worked was using atomic clock on an airplane and another atomic clock on the ground. It's based on relativity by Einstein.
Your right these guys are bullshit.
Even though time does slow down (reference to another slower moving object) it's true, their experiment is false because the LED would be at the same frame of reference to the person falling because it's falling with the person.
I hadent even considered that this was a relatavistic experiment. They were talking about the preception of time and the speed at which the brain can process information.
I mis understood the experiment. Though it seems they claim an physics output (real time slowdown) when it's just a psychology. Perception isn't an accurate measurement and he being a psychologist by training he should know this.
Time slowing down time is crock. As relativity when an object moving faster the clock moves slower. Also people that do aerobic exercise can keep looking younger as their heart can pump more blood at a slower rate.
Also he should have use more people and more rats and made a double blind study. Failed because we know which rat took what as it is labeled. I'll just blow it off as TV hype. It may be true are minds may process faster. But the measurement would be how fast the neural connections are. During a fight or flight the internal clock (heart) would be faster so even if time seem to slow down. The subject would age more. Hence may disprove the experiment as time slow down.
I'm no theoretician, but isn't time just a measurement? Like mass or sound level? Isn't saying "time slows down" like saying "miles get longer" if you're running a long distance?
Yes that is correct time is a measurement? Though the faster an object moves time slows down compare to other objects not moving so fast. But to an object or people/living/non-living things that is moving fast time would seem to be the same.
Usually when people talk about time dilation they talk about close to the speed of light. So when they say some astronaut is visiting a star far away, when he/she comes back everyone would be really... old or dead.
Well, like I said I'm not a theoretician nor am I eloquent enough to put my thoughts into words.
I'd just have to say I disagree. :) Time is time and does not change, just like an inch is an inch and a kilogram is a kilogram. Doesn't change. It's constant.
Yes it will stay constant at your reference. It's a very complicated subject and if it's covered in a basic physics class it's the last subject. That is why I choose the atomic clock experiment as it was able to be done on earth.
I suck at explaining it hopefully some videos can help. I'm realizing I'm just repeating how the text books explains it. I always think of it as speed references as speed itself it relative.
Actually an inch isn't always an inch. Not only does time change but space does too; both being inseparable. You must have a reference frame before the measurement has meaning.
Maybe it's beyond my brain to comprehend, but I don't understand how an inch could be anything else but an inch. No matter how you look at something, an inch is always an inch.
Not trying to be obtuse, but I'm curious, give an example of how an inch is not an inch.
Physics isn't my science of choice and the wiki was above my head.
I'm not saying I disagree, but that I don't understand it. It seems like one of 2 situations: 1) approaching a critical speed distorts the perspective of length between two objects... the perspective or observation, not the actual. and 2) If the critical speed is light speed, then there's so much mystery surrounding it as the next speed barrier, like people thought we'd die if we rode trains traveling at 40mph back then.
Actually any non-zero speed causes the effect. It is just that the effect is not linear with respect to the speed.
And good observation, is the measurement and the reality the same thing? Does time on board the space shuttle go slower or is the measurement distorted? The strange thing is you can pick one. It's relative.
It will really blow your mind when you try to figure out when "now" is. How can we tell whose now is the real one?
Okay, I don't buy it. It doesn't make sense to me. Not that I don't understand what you're saying, it just doesn't make sense. However, until I get my doctorate in Temporal Mechanics I'll just STFU, heh.
I can't believe more people are not familiar with this. This going into slo mo for a few seconds is well known among people that do lots of intense things. I have done it many times and I do believe it allows you to think & react faster. I also agree this experiment is junk. It's not really even an experiment, it is more of a demonstration and not even a good one at that.
shananagans5 4 months ago
It would only induce the effect if his arm was moving back and forth across his area of vision. I beleive it was stationary at the time the person who was dropped viewed it. In dealing with the perception of time this was a good experiment. A body in motion is experiencing time at a different rate or way than a body that is not. I think that is what they were trying to get at. I see the experiment as pretty sound. I think you may have misunderstood it.
lawless101aa07 1 year ago
@lawless101aa07 "A body in motion is experiencing time at a different rate"
You mean relative to those not moving. However since his arm, as you say, was not moving relative to the person falling, it also "experienced time at a different rate", specifically at the exact same rate as the person falling. Hence, NO.
I work with POV all the time. This experiment was extremely flawed as far as science goes.
DayfallKat 1 year ago
The reason that the individual colors become visible is because they have been spread over a larger and constantly changing geometric region - Each color is not necessarily interpreted on every given revolution - you may interpret the red after every 2 or 3 revolutions. It also depends where you focus.
You can't achieve the same effect with an object that is stationary relative to the observer unless the observers reflexes (or perceptions of time) increase.
scrfce123 1 year ago
@scrfce123 All correct except your last line. Ordinary reflexes will do for the device in the experiment.
DayfallKat 1 year ago
@DayfallKat Stationary relative to the observer means that the object is fixed to the observer and is not moving in relation to their body.
scrfce123 1 year ago
@scrfce123 "is not moving in relation to their body. "
actually you mean eyes or head. Which in the case of the experiment was not the case. Also any movement is aggravated by the fact that the brain might not be able to cancel movements of the eye when falling as it normally does.
Only given that the image of the device if fixed in the same position on the retina, then yes, otherwise the effect is explained by mundane persistence of vision.
DayfallKat 1 year ago
@DayfallKat Yes, I agree. Pretty much a summary of what I was trying to say. I probably wasn't specific enough though. That said, you would be getting a much more pronounced effect with the wand than with the wrist mounted device.
scrfce123 1 year ago
@scrfce123 The wand has much LESS of a POV effect because the colors are in the same space. Alternating (moving) lights are easier to detect than alternating colors.
DayfallKat 1 year ago
I was really looking for the reletivity theory answer, not brain warp with drugs answer. Can time almost stop at near light speed? I guess the answer is in theory yes. Then like superman - fly faster than light and go BACK in time..... haha But yes it's still relative to ones perception.
IronHorsez88 1 year ago
@IronHorsez88 Your time will always go as normal. The faster you go, the faster time around you will go. You could go to the past somewhere else if you travel faster than light. If you curve space past vertical then time might loop and you can go back in the same place. Watch the movie "Primer" for what that might look like.
DayfallKat 1 year ago
You did good, but I still want to know if time can slow down, and can it almost stop? Please answer us that question. Thanks.
IronHorsez88 1 year ago
@IronHorsez88 Excepting for that one lady who had brain damage and couldn't perceive ANY movement of time, the answer is no.
Time itself is relative. It will always go 1:1.
DayfallKat 1 year ago
Well, I wouldn't call this bad science because in PRINCIPAL they were trying to get a measurable result, the problem is experimental error, an artefact of measuring that must be corrected for.
People can be quite insulted to be accused of "bad science" when they merely failed to factor in the effect of vibration.
On the other hand, this would NOT have happened if the original tester had used a Control i.e. all the effect of falling minus the fear/adrenaline.
Treblaine 2 years ago
why not put the device inside some sort of fixed head gear, in order to negate vibration (and thus the described effect in the video)
Or why not administer medical adrenaline substitute, or drugs to a participant who is veiwing the device in a stationary environment.
I imagine they just wanted a "spectacular" looking experiment.
passwordresetisbroke 2 years ago
exactly, there's so many factors that could affect the result, why havnt professional scientists seen them. pretty stupid in my opinion.
ruuku00black 2 years ago
@ruuku00black
This is in fact a good experiment, to spite all the variables, at least it does it's best to simulate a true fear response.
Ideally you could point a gun at their head, that would get them REALLY afraid but even threatening with an unloaded gun is unethical and very illegal.
The consent aspect is the hardest part. Perhaps an arachnophobia sufferer undergoing exposure therapy could take a look at some numbers in a stable environment?
Treblaine 2 years ago
@passwordresetisbroke
The problem with administering adrenaline (besides it being very dangerous) is the assumption that adrenaline IS the entire "fight of flight" response or whether it is just one of the many responses the body makes.
Maybe when falling with fear not only adrenaline is released but within the brain itself there are other subtle changes.
Best simulate the ENTIRE fight-or-flight response, not just the adrenaline aspect.
Treblaine 2 years ago
Time must slow down because we have time dilation.
Could the spacetime continuum have symmetry and geometry? Newton believed Time was a thing in itself and connected to motion and Einstein believed there was something missing from quantum mechanics. In my video The Paradox of Schrodingers Cat an artist view it is Time that is the Hidden Variable.
nickharvey7 2 years ago
Um, they were weren't falling that fast. Also, no matter the dime dilation the wrist device was in the same relative time frame.
DayfallKat 2 years ago
first off, you are confusing the PERCEPTION of the flow of time with Special Relativity, which can be measured by devices that dont have perception, namely Atomic Clocks
Secondly, you are technobabbling, and although you may sound smart to a large amount of people, however to people that know about the subjects you mention (and i am one of them) you sound like a poorly written spam email
44R0Ndin 2 years ago
Sir, you got it completely wrong. Period. I don't even want to write more because obviously, to explain it to you, it would take a lot of characters and time...
Nerte85 2 years ago
Aww, too bad. I so wanted to hear.
DayfallKat 2 years ago
@DayfallKat
Well I did read an article in the UK science mag "The New Scientist" about the brain's perception of time.
The conclusions was visually there was a problem with saccades but the tentative conclusion was perception both sped up AND slowed down.
That is during say a violent attack the sense input goes up->overwhelming->things seem to happen faster. Yet when the memories are recited the volume of memories gives the illusion like filming at high speed then play back at normal speed.
Treblaine 2 years ago
It would have been interesting for the experimenters to find out the actual time compared to how much it felt like the fall took.
DayfallKat 2 years ago
@DayfallKat
Why would the amount of time the fall took be relevant?
I don't know about you but I and most people have a hard time subjectively measuring the DURATION of time even at the best of times.
The purpose of this experiment is to see if the mind can process visual input faster during a fight/flight response.
Perceived DURATION of time is another subjective layer away from the target of the experiment.
Treblaine 2 years ago
"most people have a hard time subjectively measuring the DURATION of time"
Well, you could have a device that runs at a different speed when they are falling, then ask if they think the device was running faster or slower or the same.
"... if the mind can process visual input faster during a fight/flight response."
Yes, and it failed to show that, for the reasons stated in my video.
DayfallKat 2 years ago
"Perceived DURATION of time is another subjective layer away from the target of the experiment. "
Yes, but you comment before that was talking about the perception of time, hence why I made my comment.
DayfallKat 2 years ago
@DayfallKat
What this experiment is trying to determine is if the brain (or at least the visual cortex) goes into "overdrive" when under stress/fear response to see what it could not see otherwise be seen.
Definite perception of duration of time is a more complex thought process that usually relies on counting in your head and is IMHO a different issue.
Also persistence of human vision is not absolute, I suggest you read up on Saccades and Saccade masking.
Treblaine 2 years ago
@DayfallKat
I don't know, if a clock was ticking too fast could you honestly be able to tell just by looking/listening? No, too subjective. Also this would be effected by memory elongation.
"Yes, and it failed to show that, for the reasons stated in my video."
No, all you did was prove that the experiment was inadequate, nothing has been proven/shown yet, this experiment needs to be repeated and control for vibration.
This is all GOOD science, i.e. pointing out areas for improvement.
Treblaine 2 years ago
"could not see otherwise be seen"
But it can be seen even if the brain is not in an overdrive state.
"that usually relies on counting in your head "
At this point I seriously doubt you know what you are talking about.
"if a clock was ticking too fast could you honestly be able to tell just by looking"
Unless you were perceiving the passage of time differently.
DayfallKat 2 years ago
"by memory elongation."
You don't ask the people afterwords to recall what they saw. Their estimation of the device's speed is made while they are looking at it. Sure they could lie or re-evaluate. Perhaps push one of three buttons while in free fall.
Getting someone drunk would also provide results for the same reason. Not POV effects.
They did claim on that show to "prove" it. The layperson has a hard enough time understanding the scientific method.
DayfallKat 2 years ago
Now, if they were to say that their results matched the prediction of brain going into overdrive under stress, then I would be fine with that.
DayfallKat 2 years ago
@DayfallKat
I thought you proved their result could not be trusted?
That it MAY be caused just by vibration of the arm mount?
Treblaine 2 years ago
@DayfallKat
This is all getting too complicated.
Trying to get test subjects to make precise subjective judgements as they are falling through the air is much harder then just spotting a definitive number or shape and remembering it for 10 seconds.
Seriously, if you were told "measure 5 seconds" would you not count in you head? Without counting (taking advantage of human sense of rhythm) I couldn't give any accuracy.
Treblaine 2 years ago
I never said they should count in their heads. And I personally normally don't perceive the speed of things by counting.
DayfallKat 2 years ago
@DayfallKat
Look, ok.
The problem here is we need a DEFINITIVE measurement, not a subjective one like "how long did it FEEL like you fell for" as that is open to far too many machinations of thought.
Treblaine 2 years ago
If you're not going to tell us what he got wrong, why bother writing anything?
P4INKiller 2 years ago
You do have a point about the experiment not being all that well thought out, however IMHO he would have to be shaking at a high frequency for your explanation to work.... do you have any idea how fast you are swinging that flashing toy of yours? so I would say your demonstration was poor as well.
By the way you said it was spatially spread out not "tempooraly" like those yummy fried veggies and shrimp at the Japanese restaurant? LOL "temporally" is the word...
6b796c65 2 years ago
To demonstrate the point in an obvious way, I had to move the flashing toy very fast for an extended amount of time. For the real experiment, only a slight sudden movement for a very brief time would have been required.
While I do have the technological knowledge to disprove their claim of "the only way", I don't feel a scientific investigation is necessary.
I did mean spatially (in the view of the observer).
DayfallKat 2 years ago
When I first saw this clip, I couldn't believe this crap was put on BBC. I thought they had some basic standards.
Oh well.
thisnameisuniq 2 years ago
Good call noticing this FayfallKat! I didn't catch it from the video but you're completely right. Even Michio Kaku didn't catch it!
kashphlinktu 2 years ago 2
The OOOOnly problem I have with your explanation is that the guy wasn't shaking his arm around. He held it very still on the way down.
fatsomamacheese 3 years ago 2
I also had a problem with the 'near death' part. The test person obviously didnt think the experiment was dangerous and probably was a thrill seeker to begin with. The second test must have been much less thrilling than the first so the adrenalin rush must have been smaller.
AakeTraak 3 years ago
i have to ask if you have ever dropped 12 stories in a free fall on more than one occasion. the amount of adrenaline that runs through his body the second time would probably be pretty close to that of the first time. My prime example would be Carnival rides...prefectly safe, lots of adrenaline, perception of danger, and although people don't get as freaked out after the first ride, even on the same day, they do learn to control it. otherwise rides would have been abandonded out of boredom.
dreadsherpa 2 years ago
Great video. I had swallowed that initially without thinking of the movement being the factor. Your demonstrated the point perfectly, and I could see the colours when you swung that device.
oliverscott2007 3 years ago
I did not catch it at first either. I suppose I am more skeptical of things on YouTube.
DayfallKat 3 years ago
But you're right about the falling thing, I'm very sure light is affected by the fall.
eNergizer361 3 years ago
Nonono, he's not slowing down TIME, he's slowing down his own PERCEPTION of time.
Think of Neo from the matrix. He slows down his perception. He doesn't move any faster in his slowed down view of time, but he can see where the bullets are and effectively dodge them.
Also, having a headmounted counter makes it more difficult for the body to sense that it's in danger because you can't see as well that you're falling to your doom.
LeixVonStewart 3 years ago
I am at a loss as to how my point wasn't clear.
"because you can't see as well that you're falling to your doom."
I hope I misunderstood that comment.
DayfallKat 3 years ago
I've just looked at the video again and I don't think his arm was moving.
RossPK81 3 years ago
Good call. I was wondering if someone would catch that. From my experiments, not that much movement is necessary. One slight jerk of his arm, like when he was released or when he hit the net, would do it also.
A head mounted display would fix this. But naturally by moving your eye you can produce the same effect as moving the arm but would be independent of the effects of sudden acceleration.
DayfallKat 3 years ago
So this would mean that a head mounted display including an Eyetracker device would do the trick. Perhaps the whole contraption would become too heavy leading to possible neck injuries. Go nano-technology, go! :)
XimagetreasonX 3 years ago
Good work DayfallKat, very entertaining *****
motile 3 years ago
Indeed
Katalyzt 3 years ago
nice explanation!
InReasonWeTrust 3 years ago
beard
InReasonWeTrust 3 years ago
BTW, these effects occur in the retina, as does some simple visual processing. These are simple neural nets unlikely to be affected by any CNS "general panic" state.
xwidget 3 years ago
Good point. The experiment is badly flawed. Good demonstration of exactly why.
I have seen an art work based on this visual latent image effect. It has a static column of bright LEDs and if you stared at it that's all you saw. However, if your view scanned across it you could read "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".
xwidget 3 years ago
always good Dayfall
rd1999 3 years ago
...? This is stupid. This is like making an experience to say when you have to run 10 miles, an inch turns into a yard.
If anything, you're measuring the mental or ophthalamic perception during a hightened state, not the measurement of time.
DblOSmith 3 years ago
Well, your perception of time passing does change. That was what they were trying to detect. This was just a really bad way to measure it.
DayfallKat 3 years ago
I think we're arguing over semantics. If you measure time by the ability of your mind to process information, then yes,it would seem that time is going slower because you're in a heightened state. Your body plays tricks with time happens all the time, like when you're listening to a boring speech and time seems to slow down or when you're anxious to go somewhere and that last 5 minutes seems like hours.
But, the guy kept saying "measuring if time slows down" which is absurd.
DblOSmith 3 years ago
I hope he didn't mean that. And I really hope no one thought that was what was going on.
DayfallKat 3 years ago
Time is relative, but the experiment that worked was using atomic clock on an airplane and another atomic clock on the ground. It's based on relativity by Einstein.
Your right these guys are bullshit.
Even though time does slow down (reference to another slower moving object) it's true, their experiment is false because the LED would be at the same frame of reference to the person falling because it's falling with the person.
stony4321 3 years ago
I hadent even considered that this was a relatavistic experiment. They were talking about the preception of time and the speed at which the brain can process information.
DayfallKat 3 years ago
I mis understood the experiment. Though it seems they claim an physics output (real time slowdown) when it's just a psychology. Perception isn't an accurate measurement and he being a psychologist by training he should know this.
Time slowing down time is crock. As relativity when an object moving faster the clock moves slower. Also people that do aerobic exercise can keep looking younger as their heart can pump more blood at a slower rate.
stony4321 3 years ago
500 limit :(
Also he should have use more people and more rats and made a double blind study. Failed because we know which rat took what as it is labeled. I'll just blow it off as TV hype. It may be true are minds may process faster. But the measurement would be how fast the neural connections are. During a fight or flight the internal clock (heart) would be faster so even if time seem to slow down. The subject would age more. Hence may disprove the experiment as time slow down.
stony4321 3 years ago
I'm no theoretician, but isn't time just a measurement? Like mass or sound level? Isn't saying "time slows down" like saying "miles get longer" if you're running a long distance?
The difference is all in your mind.
DblOSmith 3 years ago
Yes that is correct time is a measurement? Though the faster an object moves time slows down compare to other objects not moving so fast. But to an object or people/living/non-living things that is moving fast time would seem to be the same.
Usually when people talk about time dilation they talk about close to the speed of light. So when they say some astronaut is visiting a star far away, when he/she comes back everyone would be really... old or dead.
stony4321 3 years ago
Well, like I said I'm not a theoretician nor am I eloquent enough to put my thoughts into words.
I'd just have to say I disagree. :) Time is time and does not change, just like an inch is an inch and a kilogram is a kilogram. Doesn't change. It's constant.
DblOSmith 3 years ago
Yes it will stay constant at your reference. It's a very complicated subject and if it's covered in a basic physics class it's the last subject. That is why I choose the atomic clock experiment as it was able to be done on earth.
stony4321 3 years ago
500 limit.
I suck at explaining it hopefully some videos can help. I'm realizing I'm just repeating how the text books explains it. I always think of it as speed references as speed itself it relative.
watch?v=KHjpBjgIMVk
watch?v=gdRmCqylsME
watch?v=6Vpu6yJPRVQ <-- carl sagan
stony4321 3 years ago
Sorry but time DOES change, it can change both in terms of the person's perception and in our external world.
eNergizer361 3 years ago
Give me an example.
DblOSmith 3 years ago
Actually an inch isn't always an inch. Not only does time change but space does too; both being inseparable. You must have a reference frame before the measurement has meaning.
DayfallKat 3 years ago
Maybe it's beyond my brain to comprehend, but I don't understand how an inch could be anything else but an inch. No matter how you look at something, an inch is always an inch.
Not trying to be obtuse, but I'm curious, give an example of how an inch is not an inch.
DblOSmith 3 years ago
Length contraction: Objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the observer.
The Lorentz transformation is really at the heart of the matter.
DayfallKat 3 years ago
Physics isn't my science of choice and the wiki was above my head.
I'm not saying I disagree, but that I don't understand it. It seems like one of 2 situations: 1) approaching a critical speed distorts the perspective of length between two objects... the perspective or observation, not the actual. and 2) If the critical speed is light speed, then there's so much mystery surrounding it as the next speed barrier, like people thought we'd die if we rode trains traveling at 40mph back then.
DblOSmith 3 years ago
Actually any non-zero speed causes the effect. It is just that the effect is not linear with respect to the speed.
And good observation, is the measurement and the reality the same thing? Does time on board the space shuttle go slower or is the measurement distorted? The strange thing is you can pick one. It's relative.
It will really blow your mind when you try to figure out when "now" is. How can we tell whose now is the real one?
DayfallKat 3 years ago
Okay, I don't buy it. It doesn't make sense to me. Not that I don't understand what you're saying, it just doesn't make sense. However, until I get my doctorate in Temporal Mechanics I'll just STFU, heh.
DblOSmith 3 years ago
Hmmmmmm!!! interesting
mohawow 3 years ago
Brilliant!
DarwinsHamster 3 years ago