Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Roger Haar has raised an interesting point. We should treat
the pinhole camera in our studies of physics. It is easy to
understand, and there is lots of science in it. In my
opinion it does no good at all to tell the student that the
pinhole camera does not form an image. In his frame of
reference that is manifestly untrue; it is not good science.
It is on the same level with the statement made here in North
America that our robins are not "true" robins, or similar
statements which are made about our cedars and Douglas firs.
I have an abundance of all three species in my yard, and one
of them is 38 meters tall. Over the eighteen years I've had
it I've noticed nothing "untrue" about it and have concluded
that there is no useful scientific information contained in
those statements. The definition of "image" is in an entirely
different class: it matters in the teaching of concepts in
physics.
Hi!
I followed the discussion about the "image" given by a pinhole
camera and found it very interesting. The LEAST INTERESTING part
was the question about what the proper DEFINITION of "image" should
be.
Regards Emilio