Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!sdcsvax!sdcc6!ir353
From: ir353@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU (Matthew Grayson)
Newsgroups: sci.misc
Subject: Re: quick question
Message-ID: <3602@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU>
Date: 28 Jan 88 06:14:35 GMT
References: <3596@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU> <3053@zeus.TEK.COM>
Reply-To: ir353@sdcc6.ucsd.edu.UUCP (Matthew Grayson)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 23

In article <3053@zeus.TEK.COM> rob@amadeus.UUCP (Dan Tilque) writes:
>Matthew Grayson writes:
>>........         Mirrors don't reverse images at all,
>>they reverse orientation (we see the back of something instead of the front).
>........
>An interesting point of view [sorry, I couldn't resist the pun].  Anyway,
>mirrors *do* reverse front-to-back. 
>
>Try holding the page at right angles to the mirror.  Now the mirror *is*
>reversing the writing.
>---
>Dan Tilque


Sorry if I wasn't being clear. We are saying the same thing. Orientation
reversal does not lead to reversed images until an axis of rotation is
chosen. Mirrors reverse front to back (that is, after all, the component
of direction being reversed in the light path). You and I and everyone else
who has posted an answer have stated as much (see my excerpt above, and your
reply.)  Now let's move on to the question of why telephone cords get those
travelling helicity reversals :-)

        Matt