He's actually kinda like a Gavin though; he's not stupid, he just doesn't know how to put his thoughts into words others can understand at face value, even though he himself does understand them and the topics in question. They both just use unfortunate wording, basically.
Simon Thivierge I mean, it's obvious that the gears are turning in the factory, but the belt going in and the belt going out are completely covered in molassas.
So what I'm getting from this show, is that Chris is actually pretty smart. And he can do a good job of figuring things out, he just has trouble explaining his thoughts.
DivideByZero He never said that. He's just stating that Chris isn't always dumb, just that sometimes he has trouble explaining stuff because to be fair he's being put on the spot. You come off as snobbish by stating that.
I was kind of thinking that, as it felt like they were just getting warmed up towards the end of this for some reason. But I guess it would be harder to make as you couldn't batch record as many so you'd get way fewer episodes (which also probably means a lot less money), also the title for me would sound a bit off as a "spot" implies a small amount as opposed to an hour :o
I can empathize with Chris's struggles to articulate things on the spot like that. Not everyone is good at explaining; he is smart, just not good at explaining under pressure. I bet if he got these questions and had time to write down his answers at his own leisure that it would be much better
That's why Chris was ideal for this show. He more or less knows what he's trying to explain, but he is terrible at articulating it, which is what makes the show funny.
I love the way Chris will always have a go at the answer, knowing what is about to happen when Sally gets going. What a sport! Anyway, love this series, keep going pls pls
I think this has become my favourite RT production. I feel like it could use more guests to shake things up. I recognise that the way this has to be filmed, that would be a challenge but I think it'd be great to have another person for Chris to play off.
with regards to the perception of time you experience it you self. As a kid summer holiday seemed to last forever but now as an adult it seems to pass much quicker as it is a much smaller percentage of your time spent alive.
Seeing more flashes per second doesn't mean that one experiences time slower or faster. In the same way as you can playback a video 60, 120 or whatever fps, your brain can too. It's also possible for someone to be able to differentiate between more flashes per second but also be able to differentiate less beeps per second. If differentiating more meant perceiving time slower, this would cause a paradox.
Your second point is interesting, but i think your first point is misunderstanding the analogy. It's not about playing it back at 120 fps, it's about capturing and comprehending 120 fps, like it's not so much that everything would be in slow motion for a fly, but more that the fly is seeing and understanding everything at 4x the speed. Like, if you record 120fps, then play it back at 120 fps, a human viewer isn't seeing 120 fps, they're seeing 60fps, and missing half the frames, whereas a fly would be seeing all 120 fps (and each frame would be hanging for twice as long as it should).
+HoxTop I was curious as to why they equated processing more information over a period of time as perceiving that period of time slower. I don't see how that follows. Yes, time (or perhaps Space-Time, more appropriately) is relative. I've shot, edited, and played back videos at 240 fps (And yes, played it back on a 240hz monitor) and been able to see individual unrelated frames that I snuck in during editing. Some people that have watched it see it, while some don't. I wouldn't say that I experience time slower than the person standing right next to me, just because our brains process visual information at different rates. Our eyes are not the only way we take things in and sight is not the sole sense used to perceive time.
Ah. I assumed in order to see or notice something, your brain had to process that information. Upon looking into this more I believe I have a better understanding. And by better, I mean I am more aware that I know less than I thought I did. The eyes and brain interact in much more complex and interesting ways than I initially thought. What about reaction times though? Different people do respond to things at different speeds or seem to process information and react at different speeds. If Person A touches a hot object and removes their hand after 0.09 seconds, while Person B touches the same object and removes it after 0.25 seconds, did Person A process the same information quicker? Would that be considered experiencing time differently? Same goes for a light changing red and people being able to react and various speeds, or hearing an audio cue and reacting at different speeds. While I am not saying that certain people process information at different speeds from others, it sure seems that way. I was fairly certain this was a fact--that certain people have more or stronger connections in their brains, leading to processing specific information quicker--but perhaps not. So if our perception of time is based off how quickly we process information (whether it be visually, aurally, thermally, or through any other of our numerous senses), and not all people process information in the same way or at the same speed, do different people experience the passage of time differently?
Nathaniel Whittenhall while i don't claim to be an expert, or know this answer, I'd guess it's the difference between your brain identifying and understanding and event happening now and knowing what to do with that information. e,g, everyone views the light change at the same rate of processing, but people with better reaction times have brains that can, either through expereince or whatever, process what that change in light means, i.e. to step on the accelerator. Surely this would be why the tests Sally talks about measure their brain activity, not how quickly they can react to events.
Pretty sure the funniest part of Chris' relationship with science was the questions HE asked. Not to say this is not good, but just to explain why he does not sound outlandish.
When Chris talks about drugs affecting time, I had a shroom trip where I spaced out for a bit and it felt like minutes had gone by and I had asked my friend what time it was. Barely a second had passed by since the last time I talked with him, yet it had felt like it had been so much longer.
Well done to Chris for understanding how evolution works (ie, genetic natural selection) rather than Larmarckian misconceptions in popular culture and even a lot of science fiction.
What about adrenaline? Does your ability to see more flashes spike when the adrenaline kicks in? Like when one is in a physical fight and the adrenaline kicks in why do they perceive time slower? Is it due to increased reaction time or because their ability to comprehend the actions are increased, resulting in an decrease of time?
Research suggests the answer is closer to your second suggestion. Mostly because nothing really changes beyond what the brain/body is doing in a dangerous situation. Your brain begins taking in a great deal of detail about your surroundings, resulting in a larger density in memory. That density level makes you remember the situation as taking much longer. In the moment everything happens at the same rate, but your muscles are "super-powered" which allows you increased strength, and rapid breathing increases oxygen so stamina is increased, etc... I'm no scientist, but that's what I've found from a few research papers on the subject ;)
grapher456 she has said she is on the asexual spectrum so she doesn't really have much sexual attraction but when she does she leans more towards women. Sexual preferences (or lack thereof) are not binary.
Christopher Baker see I understand a spectrum, but wouldn't asexuality still be binary? because any amount of sexuality would negate the meaning. But I understand your explanation, thank you makes more sense now
I'm only at 3:04 so I think I know what Chris is trying to say. While time happens at the same speed for everything a fly's perception of time is different. A fly will process things faster because it lives for less time so the actions use a larger percentage of the fly's time. Like how days seem to take less time when you get older because they make up a smaller and smaller percentage of your total lifespan.
Talking about frames per second, should look and find those that have higher than average FPS and breed them and see if we can create a human that is capable of processing information way faster than us do to this one trait.
shadowx089 That was a big deal many years ago, not exactly what you're saying but more breeding a better human. I think it was called the Eugenics movement
Regarding the time thing, we as humans percieve time to be 1s/ss (one second per scientific second). Who's to say that something like a squirrel doesn't percieve time at 2s/ss which would be at half the speed we know. That would explain a multitude of things such as reaction times, and lifespans. It's something that until we find a way to communicate with animals we will never know. It's like the slow mo guys and their fps and stuff.
What would happen to an object if all the energy was removed from it, including the energy keeping the atoms and molecules together? Would the elements it's composed of just disperse?
So, following on from the perception of time thing, Sally talked about how the frequency of light perception is what defines the speed at which animals perceive time, and that humans perceive light at 60 Hz. Is this true for all humans? I assume that there is a bit of deviation from this, with some people at 59 Hz and some at 61 Hz for example, but are there people who are quite far away from 60, around 50 or 70 Hz? Is this what causes some people to have better reflexes than others?
I think what chris was trying to get at, is that time is relevant to your life span. Fly's have a very short life span hence particular events that are extremely short and insignificant for us have a much greater 'impact' for fly's. Time does not actually change (not including the theorey of relativity) it is just how it is perceived by a particular organism, hence the time is relative point.
How does determining if the animal can distinguish the light prove it perceives time slower? If could just mean the animals can see it not related to time at all.
My dogs know what time of day they get fed since we do it at the same time. At 6:30 pm, if I am busy or just forgot, they will come to me and bug me. But i've realised that when daylight savings time occurs they are an hour off, either earlier or later because it happens each time we set the clocks around.
I have some questions about the time-perception bit of this episode. Was it ever proven that, in general, the "framerate" at which living beings perceive(!) their reality (as opposed to the apparent refresh rate their nervous system is capable of, i.e. which scientists test in labs) is the same for all creatures? Because if it wasn't, then what basis do we have to link this data of refresh rate to actual perception of time? Why do we reject the possibility that the image other creatures see is just at a higher fps than what we see and they, because of how advanced their vision is in that aspect, are just able to see the difference between a 60 fps video and a 250 fps video while perceiving time just like we do?
Just to be clear.. Sally mentions things in terms of fps to explain things to Chris our eyes don't exactly collect information in terms of individual frames... It's a lot more complicated than that lol
Going off the eye talk - people say in times of adrenaline rushes and being scared, time goes slower, so therefore it could be we see more than 60 fps in those times because of the adrenaline rush. Or am I understanding this wrong?
Does seeing more in one second mean that that second is longer though? Just because they see more things in the same amount of time, does that really mean the time would seem slower? Or do they just process it faster and a second is still a second?
People can see faster than 60 frames/sec. They did a study with fighter pilots, where they flashed a certain type of plane on a screen for 1/144 of a second (or near there), and they were able to distinguish what type of plane was flashed on the screen
I love this RT production but the length is sadly leaving me wanting. I want to hear them talk at podcast length and maybe increase the cast count. Maybe even have a rotating guest system who asks random questions that Sally is not expecting (I do not know if she does know the questions before hand but you never know). Regardless I love science and I love it even more when it comes from RT. Keep up the good content guys!
What's the range on human's "fps"? Is it a really narrow range, or do some people genuinely see everything a tiny, but noticeably, amount slower? I'm assuming the first, but just curious
I saw what Chris was saying, that the fly would see things slower. If you've ever been driving on the highway and going at a fast speed, it seems like everyone else is going slow. Flies being analogous to the car
one big thing that they kind of mentioned but not really is that if you look at this from a physics standpoint there are signals going from the eyes to the brain to the body the shorter the distance the faster the signals arrive ergo perception of time gets faster the smaller you are.
Sally's voice / demeanor always makes her come across as a know it all imo. I get that it's sort of her intended role, but she irritates me a little bit. I liked the RT podcast without the fact checking.
It's supposed to educate you, what do you want? Do you want her screaming like Gavin? I do agree she should joke a bit more but I don't really understand how acting like a scientist is irritating on a show about science.
No, it's just that her demeanor / voice is irritating. It's the way she says things, it makes her come across as a know it all. Which is her job, I get it, but it is possible to educate and not sound conceited. Of course, this is just my opinion, but considering the amount of upvotes my original comment got, clearly I'm not the only one who thinks this way. I am in no way meaning to bash on her, or RT, I just wanted to state my opinion :)
so about animals knowing time.. few weeks ago there was snow on the ground where I am and was clearly winter but one day the birds were out chirping cuz it was warm that day do they think that its summer or that its weird it shouldn't be warm at this point of the year.
I have thought the same thing regarding if a fly perceives things to happen slower, not relative to intelligence, but regarding the size of the fly to a human. Because it always seems like large objects take longer to fall. Idk, just a weird thought lol.
But the critical flicker fusion threshold for humans isn't 60hz, it's higher than that. There are even studies which show certain things are perceivable by humans up to more than 500hz
odd that they didn't talk about human time dilation under highly stressful situations like combat. the brain kicks up and you process more information making time appear slow.
Is it rude to ask for the paper that did the "light flash " study, because I'm not convinced, it feels as though there maybe some things that could be argued against the perception of time being faster for smaller animals.
opens with add for mvmt watches. Gus said he always gets compliments when he wears his watch out. So we can tell that he has never gotten a compliment on his watch.
You are right-ish. Smaller you are, slower everything around looks because of distance that neural signals have to travel from receptor example eye, to the brain. Or The bigger you are slower you move, because it takes longer for signals to travel from your brain to the muscle ordering you to move your arm.
"Can you trick a tree?". "Yes it's called a greenhouse". XD
I love those moments when Sally and Gus look at eachother like "Why does he work here?"
In a good way or a bad way?
Aerorspace bad way, he's stupid
He's actually kinda like a Gavin though; he's not stupid, he just doesn't know how to put his thoughts into words others can understand at face value, even though he himself does understand them and the topics in question. They both just use unfortunate wording, basically.
Gavin doesn't understand half of what he says. "but what if the sky... what"
Simon Thivierge I mean, it's obvious that the gears are turning in the factory, but the belt going in and the belt going out are completely covered in molassas.
I can't fathom how Sally keeps so much information in her brain, it's remarkable! Great episode.
Mister Creep i think before every episode she is given the questions to prepare something, but still yes, she is incredibly smart
PacMonster0 😂😂😂😂
Love how your comment sounds much like Sally herself, it's remarkable! :D
I could prob do that too, but my head is filled with most of the pokemon and a bunch of pornstars instead...
probably has something to do with about ~10years of studying and constant researching (also being involved in Ox uni)
So what I'm getting from this show, is that Chris is actually pretty smart. And he can do a good job of figuring things out, he just has trouble explaining his thoughts.
I feel the same thing happens to Gavin around the office.
DivideByZero He never said that. He's just stating that Chris isn't always dumb, just that sometimes he has trouble explaining stuff because to be fair he's being put on the spot. You come off as snobbish by stating that.
Gavin should ask Sally "How up is space?"
Archtoches It smells like steak!
Archtoches does rocks float on lava?
This show should be a hour long podcast forsure.
I was kind of thinking that, as it felt like they were just getting warmed up towards the end of this for some reason. But I guess it would be harder to make as you couldn't batch record as many so you'd get way fewer episodes (which also probably means a lot less money), also the title for me would sound a bit off as a "spot" implies a small amount as opposed to an hour :o
I can empathize with Chris's struggles to articulate things on the spot like that. Not everyone is good at explaining; he is smart, just not good at explaining under pressure. I bet if he got these questions and had time to write down his answers at his own leisure that it would be much better
On The Spot you say?
TheScholesie09 Get out of here, Jon! We know it's you -.-
TEFgolfer11 yeah they need to get rid of Chris he's weird but he's still smart swear he's not been wrong yet
That's why Chris was ideal for this show. He more or less knows what he's trying to explain, but he is terrible at articulating it, which is what makes the show funny.
TEFgolfer11 on the spot is different than a spot of science
ok so gus 100% shouldnt stare directly into the camera whilst reading the ad-read, creepy af
yup
well he reads the text from a screen next to the camera
like every tv person ever
well cant he read ahead a bit and look around, have you ever made eye-contact with someone for a whole conversation?
Lol that's only for like 2/5 the ad read
I'm cringe, and this is 12.
just gotta imagin a fly calmly reading a newspaper intended to kill it and then fly away at the last second XD
6:55
This just in: Newspapers with interesting articles kill more flies.
Sally is so good at answering questions, she structures the answers so well!
I love the way Chris will always have a go at the answer, knowing what is about to happen when Sally gets going. What a sport! Anyway, love this series, keep going pls pls
talking about slowmotion and Gavin is not there
Vince Bael unsubscribed
I don't expect him to contribute much to the conversation. Just a little bit of "Yeah, that's wot it is, innit?" and then take a swig of beer.
I love Sally's sense of humor.
Chris is like, so almost-good at this and it makes me laugh.
Like I love how he IS right, in an abstract and distant way.
"The fly incident of 3:30 pm" lmfaooo I love Sally
These are my favorite show with Chris. The new format is great.
Chris is perfect for this series
"If a dog lives for 8 years they will remember the apples"
-Chris 2017
Make this a half hour show!!! I love it.
Sally is a national treasure. She's so great :')
make this a podcast. I can't get enough.
I think this has become my favourite RT production. I feel like it could use more guests to shake things up. I recognise that the way this has to be filmed, that would be a challenge but I think it'd be great to have another person for Chris to play off.
I could probably listen to Sally sciencing all day.
with regards to the perception of time you experience it you self. As a kid summer holiday seemed to last forever but now as an adult it seems to pass much quicker as it is a much smaller percentage of your time spent alive.
Seeing more flashes per second doesn't mean that one experiences time slower or faster. In the same way as you can playback a video 60, 120 or whatever fps, your brain can too. It's also possible for someone to be able to differentiate between more flashes per second but also be able to differentiate less beeps per second. If differentiating more meant perceiving time slower, this would cause a paradox.
HoxTop Yeah, I'm gonna go with the actual scientist and say you're wrong there pal.
Your second point is interesting, but i think your first point is misunderstanding the analogy. It's not about playing it back at 120 fps, it's about capturing and comprehending 120 fps, like it's not so much that everything would be in slow motion for a fly, but more that the fly is seeing and understanding everything at 4x the speed. Like, if you record 120fps, then play it back at 120 fps, a human viewer isn't seeing 120 fps, they're seeing 60fps, and missing half the frames, whereas a fly would be seeing all 120 fps (and each frame would be hanging for twice as long as it should).
+HoxTop I was curious as to why they equated processing more information over a period of time as perceiving that period of time slower. I don't see how that follows. Yes, time (or perhaps Space-Time, more appropriately) is relative. I've shot, edited, and played back videos at 240 fps (And yes, played it back on a 240hz monitor) and been able to see individual unrelated frames that I snuck in during editing. Some people that have watched it see it, while some don't. I wouldn't say that I experience time slower than the person standing right next to me, just because our brains process visual information at different rates. Our eyes are not the only way we take things in and sight is not the sole sense used to perceive time.
Ah. I assumed in order to see or notice something, your brain had to process that information. Upon looking into this more I believe I have a better understanding. And by better, I mean I am more aware that I know less than I thought I did. The eyes and brain interact in much more complex and interesting ways than I initially thought.
What about reaction times though? Different people do respond to things at different speeds or seem to process information and react at different speeds. If Person A touches a hot object and removes their hand after 0.09 seconds, while Person B touches the same object and removes it after 0.25 seconds, did Person A process the same information quicker? Would that be considered experiencing time differently?
Same goes for a light changing red and people being able to react and various speeds, or hearing an audio cue and reacting at different speeds.
While I am not saying that certain people process information at different speeds from others, it sure seems that way. I was fairly certain this was a fact--that certain people have more or stronger connections in their brains, leading to processing specific information quicker--but perhaps not. So if our perception of time is based off how quickly we process information (whether it be visually, aurally, thermally, or through any other of our numerous senses), and not all people process information in the same way or at the same speed, do different people experience the passage of time differently?
Nathaniel Whittenhall while i don't claim to be an expert, or know this answer, I'd guess it's the difference between your brain identifying and understanding and event happening now and knowing what to do with that information. e,g, everyone views the light change at the same rate of processing, but people with better reaction times have brains that can, either through expereince or whatever, process what that change in light means, i.e. to step on the accelerator. Surely this would be why the tests Sally talks about measure their brain activity, not how quickly they can react to events.
I love the way Sally pronounces cycad!
Chris makes this so much better
Pretty sure the funniest part of Chris' relationship with science was the questions HE asked. Not to say this is not good, but just to explain why he does not sound outlandish.
When Chris talks about drugs affecting time, I had a shroom trip where I spaced out for a bit and it felt like minutes had gone by and I had asked my friend what time it was. Barely a second had passed by since the last time I talked with him, yet it had felt like it had been so much longer.
I'm so glad they had that picture of an orchard. I didn't know what an apple was without it.
on the spot science is how i see the title of this show every time.
I love watching Chris explain stuff. Its like he can't speak and explain himself at the same time.
Well done to Chris for understanding how evolution works (ie, genetic natural selection) rather than Larmarckian misconceptions in popular culture and even a lot of science fiction.
Damn. Chris asked a question that Sally didn't have an answer to. Way to go Chris you're growing up. I'm so proud.
Great way to wake up in the morning awesome show
Sally is a legend.
What about adrenaline? Does your ability to see more flashes spike when the adrenaline kicks in? Like when one is in a physical fight and the adrenaline kicks in why do they perceive time slower? Is it due to increased reaction time or because their ability to comprehend the actions are increased, resulting in an decrease of time?
Research suggests the answer is closer to your second suggestion. Mostly because nothing really changes beyond what the brain/body is doing in a dangerous situation. Your brain begins taking in a great deal of detail about your surroundings, resulting in a larger density in memory. That density level makes you remember the situation as taking much longer.
In the moment everything happens at the same rate, but your muscles are "super-powered" which allows you increased strength, and rapid breathing increases oxygen so stamina is increased, etc...
I'm no scientist, but that's what I've found from a few research papers on the subject ;)
Aha! Thank you for the info!
Nonya Biness I was just about to respond with this answer almost verbatim, very well put.
"Ah! It's Katr- It's the hurricane!"
Best part
That last bit was perfect XD shot down before he could fly
can chris and sally date? lol i feel like thatd be such a funny couple
Sally is Asexual, but more into women than men, sorry bruh.
Do you mean bi-sexual? Because a true asexual wouldn't be sexually interested in either right?
grapher456 she has said she is on the asexual spectrum so she doesn't really have much sexual attraction but when she does she leans more towards women.
Sexual preferences (or lack thereof) are not binary.
Christopher Baker see I understand a spectrum, but wouldn't asexuality still be binary? because any amount of sexuality would negate the meaning. But I understand your explanation, thank you makes more sense now
I don't think he could handle all the patronizing lol
I'm only at 3:04 so I think I know what Chris is trying to say. While time happens at the same speed for everything a fly's perception of time is different. A fly will process things faster because it lives for less time so the actions use a larger percentage of the fly's time. Like how days seem to take less time when you get older because they make up a smaller and smaller percentage of your total lifespan.
can tou guus make this a full podcast i love it
this weekend I smoked a lot of pot and then got really tripped out about how much longer every hour felt. this helped out so cool
I honestly would love this to be 30 minutes. It's too short :)
Talking about frames per second, should look and find those that have higher than average FPS and breed them and see if we can create a human that is capable of processing information way faster than us do to this one trait.
there is probably a law against that it is really kinda similar to cloning
shadowx089 That was a big deal many years ago, not exactly what you're saying but more breeding a better human. I think it was called the Eugenics movement
Regarding the time thing, we as humans percieve time to be 1s/ss (one second per scientific second). Who's to say that something like a squirrel doesn't percieve time at 2s/ss which would be at half the speed we know. That would explain a multitude of things such as reaction times, and lifespans. It's something that until we find a way to communicate with animals we will never know. It's like the slow mo guys and their fps and stuff.
I love Chris in this.
Like Gus, that prime number thing blew my mind a little bit.
watching this show makes me relise that im not as braindead as i thought. i actually know alot of what Sally is talking about
"Yes, it's called a greenhouse." Savage.
What would happen to an object if all the energy was removed from it, including the energy keeping the atoms and molecules together? Would the elements it's composed of just disperse?
So, following on from the perception of time thing, Sally talked about how the frequency of light perception is what defines the speed at which animals perceive time, and that humans perceive light at 60 Hz. Is this true for all humans? I assume that there is a bit of deviation from this, with some people at 59 Hz and some at 61 Hz for example, but are there people who are quite far away from 60, around 50 or 70 Hz? Is this what causes some people to have better reflexes than others?
I think what chris was trying to get at, is that time is relevant to your life span. Fly's have a very short life span hence particular events that are extremely short and insignificant for us have a much greater 'impact' for fly's. Time does not actually change (not including the theorey of relativity) it is just how it is perceived by a particular organism, hence the time is relative point.
How does determining if the animal can distinguish the light prove it perceives time slower? If could just mean the animals can see it not related to time at all.
My dogs know what time of day they get fed since we do it at the same time. At 6:30 pm, if I am busy or just forgot, they will come to me and bug me. But i've realised that when daylight savings time occurs they are an hour off, either earlier or later because it happens each time we set the clocks around.
For the alcohol time perception just use Geoff and Ryan as your lab rats
I have some questions about the time-perception bit of this episode.
Was it ever proven that, in general, the "framerate" at which living beings perceive(!) their reality (as opposed to the apparent refresh rate their nervous system is capable of, i.e. which scientists test in labs) is the same for all creatures? Because if it wasn't, then what basis do we have to link this data of refresh rate to actual perception of time? Why do we reject the possibility that the image other creatures see is just at a higher fps than what we see and they, because of how advanced their vision is in that aspect, are just able to see the difference between a 60 fps video and a 250 fps video while perceiving time just like we do?
Just to be clear.. Sally mentions things in terms of fps to explain things to Chris our eyes don't exactly collect information in terms of individual frames... It's a lot more complicated than that lol
You guys should get a physicist on this show to answer physics related questions
Going off the eye talk - people say in times of adrenaline rushes and being scared, time goes slower, so therefore it could be we see more than 60 fps in those times because of the adrenaline rush. Or am I understanding this wrong?
Please make longer vids!
Never stop making these :]
Does seeing more in one second mean that that second is longer though?
Just because they see more things in the same amount of time, does that really mean the time would seem slower? Or do they just process it faster and a second is still a second?
These need to be longer so Sally can rant more. She didn't even get into explaining to Chris that goldfish can be trained over the course of months.
Omg i love this show! :D
What I learned from this week is that flies see time constantly fast- wait slow- wait fast.
People can see faster than 60 frames/sec. They did a study with fighter pilots, where they flashed a certain type of plane on a screen for 1/144 of a second (or near there), and they were able to distinguish what type of plane was flashed on the screen
Truman Hopper that's because fighter pilots are trained for that. No joke my uncle is one
Matthew Spencer You can't be trained to see faster. All people, with some exceptions, should be able to see at faster than 100 hrz
Today Chris learned what a Greenhouse is.
I know you have to cut the length of the video because it might be too long, but viewers want to see it all, so if you can, pls do it.
I love this RT production but the length is sadly leaving me wanting. I want to hear them talk at podcast length and maybe increase the cast count. Maybe even have a rotating guest system who asks random questions that Sally is not expecting (I do not know if she does know the questions before hand but you never know). Regardless I love science and I love it even more when it comes from RT. Keep up the good content guys!
this whole show is just for Gus's sick pleasure.
2:20 2:22 That subtle moment when you suddenly see yourself on a screen
Deadeyes X subtle not suddle, just so ya know.
thanks
love this show wish is was longer though :)
I love how Chris is actually smart but people forget that to the point where they made a show where his intellect is a major component
What's the range on human's "fps"? Is it a really narrow range, or do some people genuinely see everything a tiny, but noticeably, amount slower? I'm assuming the first, but just curious
i wish these were slightly longer
I saw what Chris was saying, that the fly would see things slower. If you've ever been driving on the highway and going at a fast speed, it seems like everyone else is going slow. Flies being analogous to the car
one big thing that they kind of mentioned but not really is that if you look at this from a physics standpoint there are signals going from the eyes to the brain to the body the shorter the distance the faster the signals arrive ergo perception of time gets faster the smaller you are.
I wanted Gus to say to Chris "is it the apple or the egg?" when Chris was talking about apples.
The longer we live the quicker life seems to be as we look back. When we were young life seemed so long, older people always say life goes by fast
Sally's voice / demeanor always makes her come across as a know it all imo.
I get that it's sort of her intended role, but she irritates me a little bit.
I liked the RT podcast without the fact checking.
I agree.
But unfortunately the podcast also has (had?) a segment just like this.
Or have they removed that now?
It's supposed to educate you, what do you want? Do you want her screaming like Gavin? I do agree she should joke a bit more but I don't really understand how acting like a scientist is irritating on a show about science.
I agree, but I don't think she's doing it intentionally. Scientist types are often socially unaware
People don't like others being smarter than they are, so they can't help but feel talked down to. Hence Trump.
No, it's just that her demeanor / voice is irritating. It's the way she says things, it makes her come across as a know it all. Which is her job, I get it, but it is possible to educate and not sound conceited.
Of course, this is just my opinion, but considering the amount of upvotes my original comment got, clearly I'm not the only one who thinks this way. I am in no way meaning to bash on her, or RT, I just wanted to state my opinion :)
so about animals knowing time.. few weeks ago there was snow on the ground where I am and was clearly winter but one day the birds were out chirping cuz it was warm that day do they think that its summer or that its weird it shouldn't be warm at this point of the year.
I feel like this whole show is just Chris saying something, then Gus just going like "Mkay go on"
Chris knows his stuff, but his execution is awkward, but I'm glad he is asking these questions
God, you could just see the frustration boil over Sally's face when Chris can't string his thoughts together.
I have thought the same thing regarding if a fly perceives things to happen slower, not relative to intelligence, but regarding the size of the fly to a human. Because it always seems like large objects take longer to fall.
Idk, just a weird thought lol.
But the critical flicker fusion threshold for humans isn't 60hz, it's higher than that. There are even studies which show certain things are perceivable by humans up to more than 500hz
knew the answer from Steven Fry talking about pigeons seeing the black between frames of a movie reel
odd that they didn't talk about human time dilation under highly stressful situations like combat. the brain kicks up and you process more information making time appear slow.
favorite show. Could you move the Game Attack card though? Its distracting.
Is it rude to ask for the paper that did the "light flash " study, because I'm not convinced, it feels as though there maybe some things that could be argued against the perception of time being faster for smaller animals.
Sally is the cutest :)
Is there a link dump for this show?
Finl4yh there 100% should be. It would just be harder than a traditional link dump. Maybe season 2
Where can I get light shades like the diamond ones I the background of the set?
opens with add for mvmt watches. Gus said he always gets compliments when he wears his watch out. So we can tell that he has never gotten a compliment on his watch.
You are right-ish. Smaller you are, slower everything around looks because of distance that neural signals have to travel from receptor example eye, to the brain. Or The bigger you are slower you move, because it takes longer for signals to travel from your brain to the muscle ordering you to move your arm.
Chris starts out so smart and then he keeps talking lol
So smart such a turn on😍😍
i'm just wondering what happened between this episode and the others that made her change shirt?
I live in a very foresty area and we get those Cicada, and every few years it is the loudest freaking droning I've ever heard