HELP! What is the Copernican Revolution and visual gestalt?
953257
Well, um, I've never read the book, but I believe Copernicus is the guy who said that Earth wasn't the center of the universe, the sun was, and everything revolves around it. Before, people belived that EARTH was the center of the universe, and everything was revolved around it.\n\nI suppose it could be thought as the "Copernican Revolution" because of his new idea, which no one really accepted until something else happened. \n\nSorry, my history knowledge is quite weak, but I hope this helped you out somehow. Unless that's a fictional novel you're reading..\n\nCan't help you on the second part though, google is a nice guess.
943807
The product of space and time is not so much an abstraction as much as an aberrated perception. ( Why, In GR theory, is everyone always going deductively DOWNWARDS into the collapse rather than inductively tracking the event back to original precipitating events?  The answers are THERE.)
1052487
there is a name for this phenomonon.  Parallax.  The apparent movement of an object at a distance due to the movement of the observer.  Your movement can make you thinke an object is moving.  \n\nSimple demonstration.  Pick a SPOT on a far wall.  Close one eye.  Hold your arm out and give the thumb's up sign.  Move your thumb so it blocks your open eye from seeing the dot.  Keep your head and thumb still and switch eyes.  Your brain thinks the dot moved but it didn't.  Your point of observation moved the distance between your eyes.\n\nAstronomers use this to measure the distance of close stars.  If you look out into space at a star you can see it and know on what azimuth (direction) it lies but not how far away it is.  So scientist measure the angle to the star, wait six months until they are on the other side of the sun and measure the angle again.  If they have studied up on their astronomy and can figure how far the base line between where Earth is now and siz months ago they can use the two angles and draw a triangle .  Where the two other sides of the triangle meet is where the star is and some basic math allows them to calculate how far away the star is.
108652
Check out wikepedia here:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_system#Transformations
150119
Have you tried the ezplot routine?  You can get help from the context help window.  Mathlab is the bomb.
453068
Your best best is to try sourceforge.net to see if any of the many vision processing projects will work for you.  All source there is open, and although the site can be a bit complicated, the search function is really good.\n\nAnother place to look is at research institutions.  Just go out and contact a PhD student working in the area you are interested in, if your project sounds fun, they may be more than willing to help!! ;)
411944
Not his original, but the image in the middle of the first link I'm listing is pretty close to Descartes' from De Meteorologica.  The second source has several modern takes on the image as well as a nice physical explanation of what is going on.
48258
I have little faith in Visual/Auditory/Kinaesthetic pigeon-holing. I'd rather argue that I learn in each of these different ways in different measure, according to the task at hand.\n\nI make structured, diagrammatic notes and mindmaps when I'm reading; attempt to rephrase what other people have said when I'm debating with my students (ie. "so what you're saying is..."); and rely on rehearsed fingering patterns and hand positions when I play the the piano. So - visual, auditory and kinaesthetic.\n\nHTH :)
655905
It's all "Vector Algebra"\n\nAny OpenGL book would go over the basics of the manipulation math involved.
628596
so much is written coz u asked an explanation\nThe Copernican Model\n(a.k.a Sun Centered)\nAs we discussed in the previous subunit, the Earth-centered model of the universe, refined by Ptolemy, was set firmly in place in the early part of the first millennium. It was not until 1543 that it met serious competition in the Sun-centered model of Nicolas Copernicus.\n\nCopernicus was born in 1473 in Poland and studied, among other subjects, mathematics and astronomy. He is mainly remembered for formally introducing the idea that the Sun is the center of our solar system. This heliocentric concept (sun-centered concept) was a radical idea for his time. Nearly all contemporary astronomers had adopted the Greek Earth-centered model. It was so radical a concept, in fact, that Copernicus waited until the year of his death to publish his famous essay titled, “On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres.” \n\nCopernicus had two main reasons for asserting that the Sun was the center of our solar system.\n\n1. While the Ptolemaic model was very good at predicting the positions of the planets, it wasn't precise, and over the centuries its predictions got worse and worse.\n\n2. Copernicus didn't like the fact that the Ptolemaic model had big epicycles to explain the retrograde motions of the planets. He knew that this could be explained instead by having the Earth also moving around the Sun.\n\nThe true motion of the planets around the Sun is not uniform circular motion, so Copernicus' model still needed to have epicycles. He had 1500 years of post-Ptolemy data to work with, and needed quite a lot of epicycles to make a new set of accurate predictions for the motions of the planets. \n\nThe main simplification of the Copernican model was that the retrograde loops of the planets as seen from the Earth occur naturally as a result of the Earth's motion combined with the motions of the planets.You worked on this problem in the second part of Activity Two. Here are some illustrations to consider.\n\n\n\nThe Ptolemaic Model\nClaudius Ptolemy lived in Rome around 100 AD. His model of the solar system and heavenly sphere was a refinement of previous models developed by Greek astronomers. Ptolemy’s major contribution, however, was that his model could so accurately explain the motions of heavenly bodies, it became the model for understanding the structure of the solar system. It is beyond the scope of this course to discuss all the complex social and historical implications of an Earth-centered versus a Sun-centered model of the solar system. But nearly all the early models, including Ptolemy’s version of the solar system, assumed that the Earth was the center of not only the solar system, but the entire universe. \n\nThe Ptolemaic model accounted for the apparent motions of the planets in a very direct way, by assuming that each planet moved on a small sphere or circle, called an epicycle, that moved on a larger sphere or circle, called a deferent. The stars, it was assumed, moved on a celestial sphere around the outside of the planetary spheres.
923940
what did u see ? \nDe Ja Vu ?\n\nIt's a glitch in the matrix.
496353
Fractals\n\nTake the serpenti carpet, for example. This tesselation is derived first from a square the square has its middle section taken out creating 8 new, smaller squares. This process is repeated to infinity. It is a tesselation because it is a repeated pattern. The math aspect is this:\n\nEach time we take out the middle ninth, thus leaving 8/9 of what we started with. If we continue the process infinitely, the area will be 1 square unit * (8/9)^infinity, or 0. However, the shape still exists in a 2-D plane. This explanation only scratches the surface. If you're interested, check out wikipedia, mathworld, or simply google tesselation, serpenti carpet, cantor dust, tesselation, and even the Koch Curve. If your REALLY interested you might want to check out "To Infinity and Beyond: A cultural HIstory of the infinite." You can find it on amazon, and it will give the readers digest, don't need to be a math major version of everything about tesselations.
310419
Hmmm.  I can’t see the image in the link you suggest, but I’ll take a stab at answering…\n\nBasically, Copernicus used math to figure things out.  To draw a figure for himself or for publication, he might use a compass or a straightedge, but what motivated his change from a geocentric to a heliocentric system—i.e., from an Earth-centered to a Sun-centered system—was a combination of aesthetics and mathematics.  The reason people took him seriously is because of the latter:  he provided a mathematical basis for saying that the Sun, and not Earth, lay at the center of our planetary system.\n\nBut you ask a more interesting question…  How did he figure out that the Sun was slightly off center in the solar system?  Indeed, Copernicus didn’t really put the Sun at the center:  he put the center of Earth’s circular orbit at the center of the system.  The Sun didn’t exactly coincide with that spot.\n\nWhat’s important to note is that, although planets follow elliptical orbits, the orbits are actually quite close to being circular.  The main effect on astronomical observations is the apparent change in speed as the planet orbits the Sun:  when a planet is closer to the Sun, it orbits faster, and when it’s farther away, it moves more slowly in its orbit.  So the Sun being off-center affects the motion of the planets around it.  Although Copernicus didn’t think of things this way, he nonetheless had to accommodate the change in orbital speed, which was accomplished (in part) by moving the Sun off center.\n\nUnfortunately, things get a little messy at this point.  Copernicus’s primary motivation in rearranging the planets was to preserve an Aristotelian ideal of uniform circular motion.  To do this, he did away with the “equant,” an important part of the Ptolemaic system (that came several centuries after Aristotle), and it was the equant that actually described the speeding up and slowing down I referred to in the previous paragraph.  Instead, Copernicus inserted additional epicycles and it was those epicycles that further shifted the Sun away from the center of the system.\n\nSo…  The short answer to your question would be “math.”  Copernicus used math to determine that the Sun was slightly off-center in the solar system.  But he also chose not to place the Sun at the center for some reason he never specifically described, and he further removed the Sun from the center by adding the same kind of epicycles for which his predecessor Ptolemy was criticized.\n\nUm.  I hope that helps…?\n\n(An afterthought.  If you’re interested in astronomical tools the likes of which Copernicus would have used, take a look at the last link below.  A variety of astronomical tools—astrolabes, armillary spheres, torquetums, sun dials, quadrants, cross staffs, compasses, or water clocks—might make their appearance in an image from that time, so the page at Humboldt University might help identify those.)\n\n\nRyan Wyatt\nRose Center for Earth & Space\nNew York, New York
223502
THE ANSWER IS YES AND HERE IS WHY:\n\n(Now that I have your attention, here are my arguements and conditions.)\n\nDo you mean isomorphism in mathematics or in psychiatric terms?  Furthermore do you mean an actual walrus or a symbolic one?\n\nI would say this- while an actual walrus has very little use for geometric analogy, your question could be answered affirmatively under these conditions:\n\n1) you're talking about the Lewis Carroll poem "the Walrus and the Carpenter" - a metaphor for eastern (walrus) and western (carpenter) religion, in which both of them turn upon the laity and each other- then the walrus is a fairly wise creature indeed, although not very pleasant. \n\n2) you're referring to phenomenology (called "isomorphism" in gestalt psychology- particularly in early translations of Max Wertheimer's work) and the physiological processes behind the experience of perception- in which case nobody is better suited to answer than Kohler... or possibly, you guessed it, the above mentioned walrus.  The walrus however, certainly a Brahmin, would call this "maya" instead of isomorphism.\n\nYour question- however foolish it may seem, may have begun an entirely new line of religious thought that we should immediately begin writing about to give it some legitimacy.  We can call the holy book "Alice in Kaffkaland", and include pictures of a small light in a dark room that seems to be moving even though it isn't.
783054
Wait... wait... it's coming to me... I can see the question in my head.  I think it looks like numbers and symbols... and... and...\n\nOh no!  The vision just faded and I can't see what the problem is.  Perhaps you could help by adding it as a comment to your question?
410236
It's been too long for me.\n\nSample many definitions. Go to MATHWORLD.COM (lower case)\n2 geometric figures are CONGRUENT when one gets transformed into the other by isometry.\n\nStay with it.\n\nGRIZZ
627144
Try these links:\n\nhttp://cse.ssl.berkeley.edu/segwayed/lessons/light/emspectrum.html\n\nhttp://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?fr=ybr_sbc&p=electromagnetic%20visible%20graph