Ernie Wright wrote:
> Brian Tung wrote:
> >> http://home.comcast.net/~erniew/images/geodesic.jpg
> > Hunh! Did you do that? Can I use it if you did? That's fantastic.
> Thanks! Please feel free to use them.
> The source map is NASA's Blue Marble image,
> which I stretched for the top two images to get something Mercator-like.
> I don't have anything handy to do a real reprojection. Other than that
> bit of ad hockery, they should be pretty accurate.
> Be sure to reload them. I've corrected them after double checking and
> finding a bad sign in one of my calculations that shifted the rotation
> of the cutting plane by about 3 degrees. It makes a quite noticeable
> difference in the second image.
> - Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew
Trying to make line drawing look like they have volume is as old as the
hills,it is called chiaroscuro in artistic circles.look at the tv
tonight and you will see another form of it.
Most sane people can recognise moving images in 2d can be made to look
like 3d images just like a television does, but for goodness sake that
is as far as it goes.There is a big difference between looking at
images on a screen and looking out the window at the same images.
Human intuition is a great thing,it can enjoy moving 2d images* and
not mix them up with moving objects ,relativity blurs the distinction
and it is extremely unhealthy.
The great human intuitive faculties are designed to pick up on what
the following motions represent,to waste them on cartoon
relativistic/Newtonian conceptions is a waste of a life.
Now,It takes real intuition to know what is going on there !.