Re: Clockwise without clocks

On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 04:36:51PM -0700, Muke Tever wrote:
> H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@...> wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 12:17:48PM -0500, Geoff Horswood wrote:
> >>So how would you express the ideas of "clockwise" and "anticlockwise" in a
> >>culture that doesn't have clocks?
> >>
> >>-movement of the sun? shadows?
> >>-to the left/right? (but is that the part closest to you or furthest away?
> >[...]
> >
> >How about the movement of a wheel, whether rotating to the left or
> >right? (Left-wheeling and right-wheeling for clockwise/counter-
> >clockwise). Should be pretty unambiguous, I think.
>
> Unambiguous? Isn't that the ambiguity "clockwise" and "counterclockwise"
> are trying to resolve?
By unambiguous I meant that it is clear from the example itself which
rotation is left-wheeling and which is right-wheeling, as opposed to
something like "clockwise" and "counterclockwise", which requires that
the listener have prior knowledge of which of the two possible ways
the clock turns.


> Taking the clock as an example, the hands are "wheeling" to the right from 9
> to 3, and to the left from 3 to 9, (and upwards from 6 to 12, and downwards
> from 12 to 6), while the motion is clockwise continuously.
>
> Going back to the wheel, saying that clockwise is turning left implies that
> your speakers are focusing on the top end (9-3) of the wheel. This might not
> always be the case (maybe if they read bottom-to-top, they might watch the
> bottom of the wheel first?)
[...]

No, the example is that of *rolling* wheels, not of stationary turning
wheels. When a wheel rolls to the left, its rotation (relative to your
point of view) is always left-wheeling (clockwise), and when it rolls
to the right, it is always right-wheeling (anti-clockwise). You're not
deciding left/right based on which part of the wheel you look at;
you're deciding it based on the motion of the wheel *as a whole*
across the ground.


T

--
Fact is stranger than fiction.