4 ms·
Ok, you can adjust my illustrative example of O(100s-1000s) by the 30ms to account for a finite speed of light if you think that makes any difference to the arg
by bernulli 4y ago
Ok, you can adjust my illustrative example of O(100s-1000s) by the 30ms to account for a finite speed of light if you think that makes any difference to the argument. Let me know.
- FPGAhacker 4y agoThis has got to be a troll. I have trouble believing you are being serious saying things like this.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bernulli 4y agoThat we can calculate the distance to a lightning to great accuracy (my example in the very first sentence) by accounting for a finite speed of sound only and assuming an infinite speed of light? Yeah, I'm pretty serious that we can neglect that error of some microseconds when concerned with a process that takes many orders of magnitude more.
- dredmorbius 4y agohttps://jkorpela.fi/wiio.html https://jkorpela.fi/wiio.html
- bernulli 4y ago> " These statements exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of the phenomenon. It's not that the sound outpaces the aircraft. It's that light from the aircraft (reflected or transmitted, e.g., by landing / navigational lights) travels faster than sound." Explain to me again how any of that explains why the airplane passes me (and I see it 1e-6s later which seems to be somehow super important to you) before I hear it, even though its sound is traveling towards me much faster than the plane.
- dredmorbius 4y agoYou're demonstrating Wiio's Law.
- bernulli 4y agoSeems to cut either way.