4 ms·

Hmm, I see what you're saying, but that's not what the demo is trying to convey. At one point it says "You're now traveling at [1/5 the speed of light]" -- tha

Hmm, I see what you're saying, but that's not what the demo is trying to convey. At one point it says "You're now traveling at [1/5 the speed of light]" -- that would be nonsense if it was conceived as a panning motion. e: Ah, but as someone else points out, the trip must actually exceed the speed of light, so the whole thing is nonsense. The author should recast things the way you describe them, and thus solve multiple problems at once.

guy2221 14y ago
Let's get to the bottom of this. It is a panning motion, this much is physically, visually true. Does it still make sense to talk about 'speed of motion'? Now I'm confused. What happens when you pan from the moon to the sun (during a new moon, when they're ostensibly both visible)? If you do it quite quickly you are panning faster than the speed of light? (In the interpretatio: 'if a physical object remained at the center of your scope as you panned, and started at the moon, it would have to move faster than the speed of light, to follow your pan?) So if you pan from one thing to another and they're 1 light-minute away and you take one minute to pan, does it make sense you are 'panning at the speed of light'? For something that leaves one object and goes toward another? What do you think of this?
- shardling 14y ago
  Any comparison to the speed of light immediately invokes other concepts that wouldn't apply to panning, so it's probably a bad idea. There might be situations where it makes sense to map an angular speed to some sort of absolute speed, but it just doesn't work in this particular example.
  - guy2221 14y ago
    The specific situation where it makes sense to map an angular speed to some sort of absolute speed is if you're told - or have some way of figuring out or knowing - the distance of the camera to the two objects (including if it is very highly zoomed, which it obviously is, from the perspective we are shown). in this sense - if there is an intuitive sense of the distance of the camera and the high level of zoom - it makes sense to speak of an object leaving earth at the velocity that lets it stay in the center of the frame as we pan. doesn't it?

guy2221 14y ago

Let's get to the bottom of this. It is a panning motion, this much is physically, visually true. Does it still make sense to talk about 'speed of motion'? Now I'm confused. What happens when you pan from the moon to the sun (during a new moon, when they're ostensibly both visible)? If you do it quite quickly you are panning faster than the speed of light? (In the interpretatio: 'if a physical object remained at the center of your scope as you panned, and started at the moon, it would have to move faster than the speed of light, to follow your pan?) So if you pan from one thing to another and they're 1 light-minute away and you take one minute to pan, does it make sense you are 'panning at the speed of light'? For something that leaves one object and goes toward another? What do you think of this?

shardling 14y ago
Any comparison to the speed of light immediately invokes other concepts that wouldn't apply to panning, so it's probably a bad idea. There might be situations where it makes sense to map an angular speed to some sort of absolute speed, but it just doesn't work in this particular example.
- guy2221 14y ago
  The specific situation where it makes sense to map an angular speed to some sort of absolute speed is if you're told - or have some way of figuring out or knowing - the distance of the camera to the two objects (including if it is very highly zoomed, which it obviously is, from the perspective we are shown). in this sense - if there is an intuitive sense of the distance of the camera and the high level of zoom - it makes sense to speak of an object leaving earth at the velocity that lets it stay in the center of the frame as we pan. doesn't it?