Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sam5
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by swansont
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sam5
I think we’ve settled who won the race and where to place a single camera to show that the race was a tie. That position above the finish line, and equal distance from each of the two horse’s noses.
|
If that's what you think then nothing has been settled. |
I was basing my central camera position on your diagram, which clearly showed the two horses in a tie. Now you’re trying to claim your diagram wasn’t accurate and it wasn’t really a tie.
Quote:
The problem that you have avoided addressing is how does one decide beforehand - without knowing where the horses will end up - which camera is the correct one.
By saying that you have to put the camera in the middle of the two horses, you are essentially solving a simple equation to tell you what you want to know, and you are arbitrarily choosing a frame of reference to the jusge. But this camera position would change from race to race.
|
Yeah, so? Everyone already knows that. We don't need "relativity" to tell us that. Anyway, the races only judge accuracy within .01 of a second. They disregard nanoseconds. |
You claim these are "little jokes" and yet you post them anyway, as if they are serious comments. It's irrelevant to the discussion. It's unfathomable to me that a reasonable person can look at an ASCII text "diagram" and treat it like a detailed drawing - I only drew it because you were talking about perspective and optical illusions, and wanted to make it clear that the cameras were on the finish line.
But you interpreted it differently, despite the supporting text that made the situation clear. And you spend an inordinate amount of time on irrelevent minutia instead of the concepts. Why am I not surprised at this?