When discussing zero latency, the text mentions “speed of time” and I am not clear on that.
I’m quoting the main author:
“P.S. It’s the speed of time, not the speed of light. Speed of light does not have zero latency, it does take some time to travel from one point to the other. Several readers have messaged me, asking, if I meant the speed of light. Hence this comment… :)”
not to be nit-picky – and we can drop this argument as ignore-able or non-constructive – but ‘speed of time’ makes no sense.
‘Speed = distance-covered / time-elapsed’
Keeping time constant, light will cover more distance than sound, for example.
Keeping distance constant, light will cover this distance quicker than sound, for example.
I can’t imagine ‘speed of time’ at all. It is mathematically not possible.
wow speed of time ,not actually speed of time
The lesson has been updated.