can you solve it?pic related
The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
can you solve it?
>pic related
bump
>>767468193
Bogus question. Unsolvable with given information.
the first one
the shutter of a camera takes time, and it goes from top to bottom
so by the time the shutter reaches the bottom, the pentagons location is already moving, causing the blur
Right side with blurry top is pic as bottom is pivot and top is moving at it's fastest.
>>767468977
thus causing the blur due to movement when shutter exposure.
>>767468977
>the bottom of a wheel is the pivot point
what the fuck mate
>>767468898
>and it goes from top to bottom
Eh, not necessarily
>>767468831
this
>>767468193
the one on the right
the one where pentagon on the top is blurred, because it has bigger relative velocity to the spectator.
the circle as a whole is rolling one way with the pentagons on it, but the rolling motion "gives an additional velocity" to the pentagon on the top and and "gives an opposite velocity" to the pentagon on the bottom
>>767468193
The one in the center
>>767468193
The top pentagon is focused, the bottom is a blur.
The bicyclist is moving forward, and so is the top of the wheel. Assuming she actually focused on the bicyclist, she'd be focusing on the forward moving part of the wheel too.
The bottom half is spinning backwards and would be a blur
Look at all the phys 101 dropouts in this thread holy shit neck yourselves
Both are wrong. If the photographer is following the bike, he's effectively tracking the centre of the wheel.
Both pentagons should be blurred.
>>767469133
Thats right. The bottom of the wheel is the pivot point.
Bullshit question, the variables are infinite, soooo, really any answer is correct.
>>767470155
>wheel pivots around the bottom of itself
>move forward, wheel gets buried into the earth
alright
>>767468898
Sutter speed nor direction is given, again, too many variables, so any answers, argued well enough, is correct.
Sci says:
"Right one, because the instantaneous velocity of the downmost point of a rotating wheel is zero."
agree or disagree
>>767468193
Photographer here.
Depends if the photographer is panning with the bike or not.
>>767468193
There is no answer to this question because the question is not complete.
Is the camera stationary or is it following the bike? We need this.
>>767468193
Left if the camera is tracking the bike as it moves, as the bottom of the wheel would be moving more than the top relative to the camera.
Right if the camera isn't tracking the bike, because the bottom of the wheel would move less than the top during the the exposure.
>>767471002
>tracking the bike, whose weels pivot around the center of themselves, somehow makes the bottom move more than the top relative to the tracking camera
are you retarded anon?
after doing some image searches for cyclists and moving wheels i couldn’t find a single photo that demonstrates this. anybody have an image that does?
>>767471365
Maybe the photographer is focusing on the tops of the wheels
>>767471636
Very specific, and he'd look like a complete retard doing loops with his camera, but fair point nonetheless
