4 ms·
Hmm. If the arrow was actually travelling in a different direction, doesn't that imply that you'd need to be able to cancel the turbulence from that motion? Oth
by mrec 6y ago
Hmm. If the arrow was actually travelling in a different direction, doesn't that imply that you'd need to be able to cancel the turbulence from that motion? Otherwise it'd appear in the snapshot as contradictory evidence.
- franek 6y agoSure! I'm assuming if we have the means to fake the one turbulence, we can also cancel the other. Or the arrow is just not moving, thus no "natural" turbulance to cancel. I'm not saying that air turbulence wasn't a very strong indicator for motion! And I am not sure the technology to fake them completely does exist. But I don't see why it shouldn't be possible, maybe with a very elaborate set of fans, air ducts and loudspeakers.
- mrec 6y ago> I'm assuming if we have the means to fake the one turbulence, we can also cancel the other That seems like a leap. There's a huge difference between generating some plausible-looking turbulence and generating one absolutely precise pattern of turbulence at one exact instant.