Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
Forum Moderators: incrediBILL
Webmasters at WebmasterWorld have the strangest kinds of expertise. Does anyone know this story? I would like to know
1. Where did this happen?
2. And when?
3. Where was this story originally told?
Of course I would like to have the exact words from the original source.
It's not _me_ who is meaning something! And of course it is possible that I simply remember the story wrong or these scientists have misinterpreted the situation. But if the story is correct and if I were to offer some kind of explanation for it, I would most likely have to deal with the choice between a spiritual and a materialistic point of view.
If I find something I'll tell it here.
Right now I am listening to a legendary old recording (1937, Busch Quartet) of a string quartet (his no. 15) composed by the completely deaf Beethoven in 1825.
Outside my home town is making noise. 2003 is three hours away.
It is a little known fact that as a child grows up within a culture it learns the sounds of that culture. It is why native Chinese have a hard time with English - there are no sounds for the letters F and R. And if you listen to someone speaking Swahili - you might hear the clicks and pops that are integral to their language - but doubtful you'll hear all of them. So it is easy step to musical notes that might not be heard. The brain can be taught to hear what our ears can discern but it is best taught while we are young and have not developed expected patterns. Once we have evolved into adults, we have assimilated the sound patterns of our native culture and have a hard time hearing anything that may be radically different.
I guess this makes some sense; we "learn" to "see" two dimensional images (photos, TVs, computer screens, maps) at a very early age. If a person had never seen any such thing, then what?
As to not "hearing" music, I am less sure. It seems all people (maybe even all sentient animals) are always listening for something out of the ordinary because it could mean danger . . .
Isn't a reflection a two dimensional image? If so, wouldn't they have an opportunity to view one in still water?
> Isn't a reflection a two dimensional image?
Interesting question. I tend to think that it actually isn't.
It makes sense if you think about it. As for the sounds that we don't normally hear being difficult for us to hear: I'm no expert in this field so I freely admit I don't know. Perhaps it's the pattern of sounds rather than the sounds themselves. They may have heard the notes before but not in such an organized, rythmic construct.
Is apparent depth true depth?
The apparent distance to a point in a reflected image (assuming a flat mirror - add curvature and it gets much more complicated.) is the sum of the distance from the observer to the mirror and the distance from the mirror to the object whose image is reflectd. I haven't sat down and done the math in a few years, but I remember the result. If you like, I'll dig around for a decent illustration of the fact.
Would that then be a 3D rendering of a 2D object?
No more so than your normal perception of the 2D object would be.
Basically, as far as how the light reaches your eye, there is no difference between looking through a window and looking at a mirror. If it is flat, it will still look flat. If it has depth, it doesn't lose it.
Please keep in mind that I was a history major and have no scientific background. (everybody's ignorant, just on different subjects according to Will Rogers). :)
A photograph has enough other visual cues that we interpret it as having depth, but in fact it has none. You don't have to re-focus your eyes to see objects at different distances from the camera lens - you can't. Photographers make deliberate use of this to focus your attention where they want it, and you can't decide to sharpen up the focus some place else.
Examples: suppose your wife is standing behind you reading over your shoulder. To see her reflection in the monitor, you would have to focus your eyes about two feet *behind* the monitor. If your attention is drawn to the sparkling diamond on her ear, you will have to focus a few inches further behind the screen than if you are instead captured by her smile.
If, on the other hand, you used the digital camera sitting on your monitor to take a picture of her and view it on the screen, you would have to focus your eyes on the screen to see it, and you will not have to focus your eyes differently to look at the earing than to look at the smile.
Point me to the part that says a reflected image is three dimensional
It doesn't, exactly. It goes over in decent detail the ray diagrams for image formation of a point. You get from there to three-dimentional images by realizing that an object consists of many different points. A truly three-dimentional image has points that are at different distances from the observer.
If I focus on the image of the sparkling diamond, am I focusing on a two dimensional or three dimensional image?
Light ray does NOT bounce off real/3D thingie before it hits your eye = 2D image
That better? hehehe
I could try translating it into latin, if that would help your lawyerly comprehension, but I ain't so good at them dead languages, so I can't promise coherent results... ;)
No, I'm not pulling your chain. Flat mirrors, convex mirrors, and concave lenses produce "virtual" images - they have no physical existence. Concave mirrors and convex lenses (such as those in telescopes, camera lenses, and your eyes) create "real" images, but even those can't be directly seen from the side.