Super Human?

>>8268116
If a lightning bolt were to strike, it moves at the speed of light, right? You can notice it, but you can't dodge it once you already see it coming, as you don't move anything close to the speed of light, you just process information abnormally fast.

>>8268160
Lightning travels at 1/3 of the speed of light, but yes you wouldn't be able to see it, but you would be able to observe it longer than other people can.

Not OP but I have a question. If this happened, how would people look? Would things be in slow motion and people would be moving slowly? But then how would they see you? You wouldn't be moving fast because it doesn't actually increase your movement speed.

>>8268287
Time would look possibley 5 - 10x times slower than normal so you would see their lips moving slower and the sound around you would be slower like the environment around you and sound wouldn't sound that much slower because of it being around 700mph.

ITT: 10 year olds and/or people on drugs.

>>8268312
Yeah, but how would they see you? Do you perceive yourself as moving slower too, or what?

>>8268116
From your perspective, time would be moving normally, all observers perceive events at different times because the speed of light is a constant while spacetime is relative (please confirm someone), however they can still agree on the events that have happened. The faster you'd think, the slower time would go but your perception of it would be the same (I think). Sorry, this is what I've read about special relativity so far so wait for someone to confirm.

>>8268116
It wouldn't appear to be in slow motion at the time, although your memories might be slowed down. And you would be able to react faster in a fight, for example, but not physically move faster like in a race.

>>8268337
>>8268342
So basically, you could react to things faster/have faster reflexes, but things wouldn't actually slow down for you or appear to be moving in slow motion?

>>8268969
You would just notice and be able to mentally do more per any given window of time, but everything would largely move in realtime at the same rate.

The notion of time sense depends. I don't actually know what to make of that, because I know a bit too much. I frequently had Alice in Wonderland syndrome stuff as a child and teenager, and the way it panned out was either that things were happening so quickly you couldn't really understand what was happening or react in time, ie going along in a car at 30 mph felt like we were barreling down the road at 150, swerving around corners, etc. I just closed my eyes and didn't watch, yet it wasn't as though a 20 minute drive was completed in what felt like 3 minutes. The inverse was things moving so slowly you would issue commands to your body and there would be a delay before it would happen. You'd have to wait and factor in that offset. At the same time you're not really thinking or doing more per instant.

Weed also did the same thing to me. Felt like I was moonwalking and moving in slow motion for days after getting real blazed. Playing paintball I could practically see them coming at me.

I don't know how all that works.

>>8268984
>You would just notice and be able to mentally do more per any given window of time, but everything would largely move in realtime at the same rate.
Also, bear in mind, this is ignoring that the whole premise of this conversation is mechanically impossible for anything remotely like the human brain. The time it takes to rebuild membrane potential alone disallows it, and the byproducts of such energy expenditure would quickly kill the cells. It would have to be accessed only in bursts, but even then it would readily deplete glycogen reserves, there wouldn't be enough oxygen, and anaerobic production wouldn't be adequate and would only further the toxic effects.

Google excitotoxicity and ROS production.