SiliconInvestor
     Advanced Search   [ sign in ]

register
Register

 Technology Stocks : ahhaha's ahs

 Public Reply | Prvt Reply | Mark as Last Read | FilePrevious 10 | Next 10 | Previous | Next  
To: deeno who wrote (20800)4/16/2012 8:55:16 PM
From: ahhaha of 23329
 
The physicist was merely pointing out that the police officer was making a claim about appearances that he didn't actually see, but rather inferred. :

In lack of complete information, the officer interpolated the available data, using the simplest and physiologically explainable linear interpolation, i.e., by connecting the boundaries of available data by a linear function

Another car obscured the actual visual data. The officer took previous visual data and interpolated it to a certain conclusion which can't be born in fact. Then, the officer didn't compensate for the parallax effect by making a rotation of his observer's frame. Had he done that he would have realized that his inference was wrong.

This effect is quite common in traffic incidents. In physics we have to be careful with the notion, "seeing is believing". Defense attorneys have to do the same. They should be aware of the parallax effect and other phenomena associated with relative motion.

I have made similarly technical arguments in court that weren't so kindly accepted. Depends on the judge and the size of your name. If the judge isn't the analytical type, your effort may be taken as an attempt to belittle the court, and then your revelation of the truth will be rejected.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public Reply | Prvt Reply | Mark as Last Read | FilePrevious 10 | Next 10 | Previous | Next  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQ
Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.