5 ms·
To make this even clearer: Let's imagine that there is a huge amount of time dilation (we live on the surface of a neuron star or something). By climbing a bit
by GolDDranks 1y ago
To make this even clearer:
Let's imagine that there is a huge amount of time dilation (we live on the surface of a neuron star or something). By climbing a bit, we experience 1.1 seconds instead of 1.0 seconds experienced by someone who left down.
We have a clock that can measure milliseconds as the smallest tick. But climbing up, back down, and comparing the amount of ticks won't let us conclude anything after a single millisecond. If anything, we must spend at least 11 milliseconds up to have a noticeable 11 to 10 millisecond difference.
Now, if the dilation was 1.01 seconds vs 1.00, we would need to spend at least 101 milliseconds up, to get a minimal comparison between 101 and 100 milliseconds.
- josephcsible 1y ago> Let's imagine that there is a huge amount of time dilation (we live on the surface of a neuron star or something). That idea is the premise of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence_(novel)
- rcxdude 1y agoThinking in terms of 'ticks' over-discretises it. You can in practice measure frequency to much more precision than any discrete cycle time in the system you're using, because you can usually measure phase, i.e. you're not just seeing some on-off flash, you're seeing a gradual pulse or wave, and it's how accurately you can measure that pulse (in terms of SNR) which sets your integration time for a given precision, not how rapidly you're measuring it.