Skip to main content
12 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Feb 5 at 21:17 comment added KDP @m4r35n357 Thumbs up for your correct description of Terrell "rotation".
Feb 5 at 13:43 comment added you3 @m4r35n357: Oh... I am not so familiar with these. After all, thank you for your comment and kindness!(ノ>ω<)ノ
Feb 5 at 13:33 comment added m4r35n357 I was not picking your terminology in particular out for criticism, it was a general comment ;)
Feb 5 at 13:29 history edited you3 CC BY-SA 4.0
added 2 characters in body
Feb 5 at 13:26 comment added you3 @m4r35n357: It's true that in our "objective" reference frame the cube doesn't rotate, but we observed a rotated cube in fact. So I think "rotation" is a fine description of the observed phenomenon as we can even calculate the angle(arcsin v/c). I just take this terminology because my textbook said so and I am not sure if it's widely used in English. Anyway, I will edit it to be "effect".
S Feb 5 at 13:17 review First answers
Feb 5 at 13:58
S Feb 5 at 13:17 history suggested Darth Vader CC BY-SA 4.0
fixed grammar
Feb 5 at 12:54 comment added m4r35n357 Terrell "rotation" is a misnomer, it was coined because the original analysis was done WRT a sphere, which preserves it shape under aberration. When you look at cubes, and bear in mind the effects of aberration, it becomes obvious that you are apparently seeing the "back" of the cube (which looks like it is in front of you) because you have already gone past it! In any case, describing the resultant visual distortion of the cube as a "rotation" is pretty sloppy terminology.
Feb 5 at 12:38 vote accept TKoL
Feb 5 at 12:38 review Suggested edits
S Feb 5 at 13:17
S Feb 5 at 12:34 review First answers
Feb 5 at 13:00
S Feb 5 at 12:34 history answered you3 CC BY-SA 4.0