Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY  (couldn't you have found a better looking observer?). |
Actually it is an artists impression of a dinosaur called a Trooadon 60 millions years into its evolution if it had survived. A creature that walked on two legs, and had many of the physical attributes required to develop intelligence, including a large brain. He was millions of years ahead of us in the race for our current position and status. But a meteor put paid to him, lucky for us, unlucky for him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY Also, why would the reflection "appear" to be moving away at greater than light speed if the mirror moves away at only slightly greater than half light speed, if the illusory distance is always twice the acutal distance? The reflected image should follow at whatever velocity the mirror recedes I would think. |
Well, the best example I can think of is if you painted a picture, and in particular, a tree so that it appears about 100 metres from the front edge of the picture (an illusion of depth)
Now, if you move the painting away from yourself at half-light-speed, then the tree will always 'appear' at what ever distance the painting has reached + the illusory 100 metres.
The 100 metres (illusory) will never change because the painting is
not dynamic. A mirror, however,
is dynamic and as the tree is replaced by your own reflection it will always appear at double the actual distance the mirror has reached. This is only illusory, triggered in your brain by the decrease in height of your reflection.
Do you know that your eyes (everyones) have NO depth perception at all. Our brain creates it from the change in heights and previous perceptions of similar situations retrieved from memory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY Yet the depth perception of the actual distance you propose might be correlated with the observed depth perception of the observer's reflection - no actual distance other than redshifted light. |
Wow ... now that you say that ... I am unsure ... But I think, and only think, that the 'redshift' of the reflection would also have to match the 'redshift' of the receding mirror. If it doesn't, but is twice 'redshifted' in relation to the mirror ...
then POK is back in the running with his idea. !!!
It would also mean,
a really bizarre thought, that red-shifted light reflected from objects in space could be supplying information that is incorrect regarding the objects themselves ...
for this reason alone I am convinced that it is incorrect ... but at this exact moment, for the life of me, I can't see why ????
You've raised a good point Nob, if I understand you correctly.
Perhaps Neutralino, or Dave or Lloyd could work this out ... I am thinking but nothing is coming yet ... LOL
cool bananas ... greg
