not uninteresting on light, speed of, and shadows for AtD readers

[David Morris]

>
>
>
Does this "theory" make any sense?  If light's absence "makes" a shadow on
some surface, any "movement" of that shadow will be dependent on change in
the the light being projected onto that surface.  The author's example of a
spinning image moving faster at the periphery makes no sense unless that
wheel is spinning at the speed of light, right?

David Morris
who just finished AtD last night, just in time to prepare for next week's
hosting...





>     [image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/> [image: E-mail
> This]    *OPINION *  | June 20, 2007
> *Op-Ed Contributor:  The Shadow Goes
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/opinion/20wertheim.html?ex=1183003200&en=a0c3cbeb1380f234&ei=5070&emc=eta1>
> *
> By MARGARET WERTHEIM
> It's quite easy to conjure up a faster-than-light shadow, at least in
> theory.
>           Copyright 2007
> <http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html> The New York
> Times Company <http://www.nytco.com/> | Privacy Policy<http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/privacy.html>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20070620/9600363c/attachment.html>