Please help I need to prove a physics teacher wrong

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the misconception that an observer can see more of their image by moving further back from a mirror. Participants clarify that as one moves closer to the mirror, the image of oneself appears larger, but the visible area does not increase significantly. The angles of incidence and reflection play a crucial role, as moving farther away reduces these angles, limiting the view of the image. Additionally, the three-dimensional nature of human features complicates the perception, as certain parts of the face can obscure others when viewed from different distances. Ultimately, the statement is deemed a misconception, depending on the reference point and context of the observation.
eromero7
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I'm not able to understand this misconception
"An observer can see more of their image by moving further back from the mirror"

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I tested and I believe I can see more of the image as I move further back from the mirror, but I know it needs to be something with visuals, or with the angle that the object reflects but yet I'm not able to come up with a conclusion. Please help I'm a biology major and have never taken any physics courses.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
eromero7 said:

Homework Statement



I'm not able to understand this misconception
"An observer can see more of their image by moving further back from the mirror"

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I tested and I believe I can see more of the image as I move further back from the mirror, but I know it needs to be something with visuals, or with the angle that the object reflects but yet I'm not able to come up with a conclusion. Please help I'm a biology major and have never taken any physics courses.

You can test this practically, or derive it theoretically, but either way the statement is incorrect, and indeed a common misconception.

As you move closer to a mirror, you can see more and more of the surroundings [the image of the surroundings reflected in the mirror] - but as you get closer, the image of yourself also gets bigger, so you don't see a greater expanse of that. By getting bigger I am referring to the "Sesame Street" idea/song , that things look bigger when they are closer up.
 
I'm not able to understand this misconception
"An observer can see more of their image by moving further back from the mirror"

This is one of those statements that is suposed to make you think about angle of incidence and angle of reflection, both of which in a mirror are equal. As you move farther from the mirror both angles decrease. If at the bottom of the mirror you can see your belly button, than farther away you will again see no farther down than your belly button. And that is why it is a misconception, and what them mean from a textbook point if view.

But that is only for people or objects that are flat.
As we know people are not flat, but have curves and protusions.
Look at your face in the mirror from say 3 feet away. Then move closer. as you move closer, you will notice that parts of your face begin to disappear from view. You cheeks may begin to hide your ears and sides of the face. Your chin may hide you neck, and since the top of your head is curved you will see less and less of that part.

So is the statement a misconception or not. It depends on the point of reference.
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanged mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top