Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Goose
So going by what you're saying... this means that for all of ark's so-called adherence to the scientific method and all his so-called scientific calculations, he's been doing it all, not just wrong, but in a way the scientific community considers invalid?
|
When doing experiments in the labs, including while I was in college, we had to take a lot of observations before we could even start. Things like current temperature (was needed on some fluid tests), current state of the experiment apparatus, pre-calculations (density determinations, angles, compensation equations for various errors that might occur, etc), current lab set up (like angle the devices are set at, how the instruments are hooked up, etc) and a few other things that depended on the test being done. Then we made sure all the devices we were using were all set up and secure like a measurement scale behind a tube a liquid we were going to observe a change of fluid level in, instruments are calibrated, etc. THEN we began the experiment. And it wasn't just once. We would take maybe a dozen or more readings and use them to get our one conclusion since due to errors a single measurement would NOT be enough. A trend or mean was needed to validate our tests. Sometimes we would encounter one or two results that were way outside the fitted curve, meaning something went wrong at that time. We wouldn't have caught it without the multiple measurements.
The same was for motion tests. We had to make sure our observations were from the same point each time and the tests were done several times to make sure the results were somewhat consistent (and of course we calculated error in the end and included that in our reports). Inserting scales after the fact without knowing anything about the environment or the observer's positioning to the test is a big no-no. Changing the camera's angle to follow an object as it flies and then using that same footage to determine speeds? Don't think so. There's a reason why tests have multiple cameras set up to cover the entire length of the experiment all set normal to the field.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Goose
Also, something to consider. Ark has frequently stated that magical attacks travel slow based on frames and his calculation. How does he then reconcile that with Sturm Falken, which is stated to be supersonic?
|
From talks with my art major friends and documentaries I've seen on Discovery and History channel, you can't trust frames. For one, frames can vary from show to show; even episode to episode. This makes it very erratic and a horrible way to collect data since there is no consistency. Then there's the animation itself. This relates to the frames in a way in that there can be gapes in the animation. It's a shortcut used by animators to reduce the frames per second but not make it look choppy. In fact, that is how animation was made in the first place. It all relies on the fact that the human brain/eyes can only process information so fast. By knowing that rate you only need to include so many frames since any extra would be missed by the viewer. More frames do make it look a lot smoother and add to the quality but those are movies and high-budget projects. Shows on TV tend to cut corners since they don't have as much. The camera angle also varies on a show. This relates back to illusions and measurements. An arrow is being shot at an angle 'into' the screen from a corner. In order to make it seem to go faster, they don't make it proportional as it flies away, but shorten its length even more. Animation is all tricks to create a desired look and feel when viewed. Things like proportion and relative speeds do not matter. You can ask almost anyone who studies animation and they will tell you this.