On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Jim Muth wrote:
Is the inability to visualize four-dimensional objects a limitation of our 3-D visual apparatus, is it a limitation of our minds, or are we merely unable to imagine an abstraction that does not physically exist?
You seem to be wanting to view a moving object in a still shot. It can be done with TWO still shots, and it is frequently done that way. Some scenes allow you to see, approximately, history -- to extrapolate what happened before an accident for example. But THAT requires a fair bit of common knowledge in Physics. What might be interesting is whether a person could view two (or several more) slices of a four-dimensional fractal and come up with a path between them that was continuous -- that could be made into a two-dimensional viewpoint within a movie. Actually, I'm not sure that it would be reasonable to expect continuity. Predictability or character of some kind should enter the equation, though, if it doesn't automatically. That adds up to a visualization of sound for me. The effect of sound on the imaje should be predictable enough that you can see the effect of sound in history, but something else in the imaje (or ABOUT the image) has to oscillate in a regular fashion. For example, maybe a frequency analysis on the sound could be done so that sound would affect the pallette registers. I'm thinking along the lines of a graphic equalizer with 256 bands, where the brightness of a colour would increase if sound frequencies in the corresponding band increased.