Talk:Parallax
|
|
This is a good description of parallax. But it's a difficult thing to explain and I think a picture would help.
The article should be expanded in relatioship with cameras.
- I have a question at talk:Single lens reflex camera. --KQ
Mention added! - MV
| Contents |
parallax
you described it rather akwardly I think. The simple definition I have learned describes it I feel more simply. Parallax is the apparent movement of one object relative to another due to the movement of the observer.(o.k don't have permisson to copywrite this but hey its a leaving cert definition and is used by thousands of students every year) Show diagrams of the simple pen experiment where you hold two pens out in front of you, one above the other. The bottom one slightly further away from your face than the top. move your head and you will see parallax. But you know this already right?
OK, I added your simple definition (reworded). A drawing would be good, but I am no good at drawing - MV
Example Diagram
I agree that the page needed a clear, concise diagram with similar explaination - I threw something together in (don't laugh) Microsoft Word... Should be good enough until a real artist decides to make something reasonable.
The previous "informal introduction" was far too wordy and very unclear, even to someone who knows precisely what parallax is. Hopefully this should rectify the situation.
Someone improve my formatting (and image) if you like :)
References?
I really think this is an excellent article, to the point where I believe it would make a great featured article, but unfortunate it lacks the key requirement of good references which allow people to verify our information. Could the authors of this article add some references describing where they picked up this information? Whether it's online or not it'll still be helpful. Thanks. Deco 21:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Stellar parallax
The problem with the argument against heliocentrism was not that a huge size of the universe didn't occur to anyone; it's that the size was incredible. Aristarchus himself explained that the size of the sphere of fixed stars was effectively infinite compared even to the Earth's orbit. Archimedes rejected that, mainly on a quibble with the language Aristarchus used. Tycho understood the argument but thought he had good reasons to believe that the universe couldn't be as big as the lack of parallax implied. --Dandrake 00:25, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)