## infinite horizontal vision

If you don't know where to post something, put it here and an administrator or moderator will move it to the right place.

### infinite horizontal vision

Imagine two cameras on a horizontal line focused at a single object such as a sphere, no more than 5 feet in front of the cameras horizaltal line axis. Now move the cameras each in oppisite directions on the line until both sides of the sphere can be veiwed at once, except the top and bottom. This would be doing the same thing that our eyes do, seeing a 3d object from different horizontal points of veiw, but this view would be much wider than ours, so this would be like a wide 3d view. But now add a third camera moving vertically up, and place the triangle of cameras all the same distance from the sphere and each other. Now just as a 2d being would only need one eye to see its plane in the same way it does, and a 3d creature needs two, could this use of 3 eyes described above relate to the fourth dimension at all. All of this is just something that i thought about right before i went to bed last night, so i havent had much time to organize my thoughts but any feedback would be highly appreciated. thx.

Now i am adding this since it has just come to my attension:

what if the cameras viewing the 3d sphere, while still moved far enough apart(would have to be extremely far) were brought back closer together w/o losing there absolute view of the sphere from all sides, now, what would be on the other side of the sphere since all sides can be viewed from looking forward at the sphere? would this be fourth a dimesional beings view of one of our 3d spheres? could he then proceed to walk around the sphere and see whatever may lie on the other side(possibly even the inside of the sphere? none of this probly makes since i need some time to organize my thought, but if anyone even has a glimpse of what im talking about, couldnt this be significant? its kindof like one of those magic eye books, or even a 3d movie, except with the cameras focussed further apart and three instead of two, and instead of using the 3d glasses or crossing your eyes to see the the 3d (or possibly 4d w/ 3 cameras/video cameras) couldn't the view be processed by the brain, or even possibly a computer and then transposed onto the computer screen? Right now this is bringing so many ideas into my mind i cant type them fast enough, and if anyone thinks this could be even slightly significant i may get back to it later, thanks "four" (had to say it) your time, and by the way, i am fifteen and very intrested in higher dimensions, so if anyone would like to discuss them w/ me my screen name on aol is dnmoore1990. thx.........
life is about making choices and never looking back
danielmoore
Mononian

Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 10:52 pm

i have found a simmilar post to this but i ask not to lock this one, because one of the main ideas i am trying to get across here is completely different than the ones discussed there. The one point i want to most try and get across is the viewing of all sides of a 3d objest at once while there is still space behind it, perhaps a 4th spatial dimension, kindof like a flat repressentation of a globe, except there view of all 3d objects being that way, not exactly a good analogy at all, but the closest i can think of, thx for your time
life is about making choices and never looking back
danielmoore
Mononian

Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 10:52 pm

Now just as a 2d being would only need one eye to see its plane in the same way it does, and a 3d creature needs two, could this use of 3 eyes described above relate to the fourth dimension at all.

It's possible that 4D creatures would need thee eyes. There's a few threads about this problem, but I don't know much about them. As far as I remember, 2D beings still need two eyes for parallax. It's possible for a 3D being to see with one eye, but there's no depth perception (try kicking or catching a ball with one eye closed).

All of this is just something that i thought about right before i went to bed last night, so i havent had much time to organize my thoughts but any feedback would be highly appreciated. thx.

You'll get a much better response if you organise your thoughts before you post. It's not too late, just think about it some more and post again. Noone will understand your post better than you do yourself (that's true of anything you do).

PWrong
Pentonian

Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

One eye suffices to capture an image: for example, many animals low on the food-chain tend to have a single eye on each side of the head.

Two eyes serves to give parallax. You don't need any greater number. You can get decent parallax with a single eye, as birds do. The head jerks from location to location, and the shift serves to give some measure of parallax.

Any greater number of eyes serves to confuse.
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.

wendy
Pentonian

Posts: 1832
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

No, thats a misconception. Regardless in which dimension (of course at least 2) the being lives in, two eyes suffice to perceive depth and so to correctly estimate distances in that world. (Of course if we assume the eyes be similar to ours, i.e. in n dim space having a retina of dimension n-1.) I completely agree with wendy.

Noone will understand your post better than you do yourself (that's true of anything you do).

Though I also experienced that someone else understood my problem better than me. For example if you are new to a certain area and gather intuitively some rules, but can not express it thoroughly nor can make it properly clear to yourself, then some expert of the field might guess what you try to express, because he knows the rules that are valid and what questions might occur.
bo198214
Tetronian

Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: Berlin - Germany

To see all the surface of a sphere at once, you need four cameras, placed in the vertices of a tetrahedron. But that doesn't mean you see like a 4D being. They would see ALL the points of the sphere, including its insides.

Use the dimensional analogy. Put a circle in 2D. You need three cameras (in the vertices of a triangle) to see all of its perimeter, but still don't see the inside. A trionian, though, will look from outside the plane and will see all the circle at once. Same goes for higher dimensions. To see all the surtope of a nD body, you need n+1 cameras, placed in the vertices of a simplex-(n-1). To see all the nD body, including its contents, you must get out the hyperspace the body is in. That is, you need an extra dimension.

BTW.
1. A simplex is the polytope with the least vertices in a given space. The series runs like this: point, segment, triangle, tetrahedron, pentachoron, ...
2. http://tetraspace.alkaline.org/forum/vi ... .php?t=577 is also on this issue.
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian

Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

PWrong wrote:It's possible for a 3D being to see with one eye, but there's no depth perception

Oddly enough, I've always been able to perceive depth with one eye closed; the only difference is that things I don't focus on aren't so blurry.

Keiji

Posts: 1962
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Oddly enough, I've always been able to perceive depth with one eye closed; the only difference is that things I don't focus on aren't so blurry.

The brain gets pretty good at guessing how far away an object is. But it's slightly better with parallax.

PWrong
Pentonian

Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

no its no guessing. Its an unexact measuring.
If you have a camera and (one eye) and want to know how far a certain object is, then you simply focus on that object, i.e. adjust the distance of the lenses in the camera such that the object becomes sharp. And then you can compute the distance by the focal distances and distance of the lenses.
Of course this method becomes quite unexact for far distances, but so becomes the two-eyes method.
Now the human eye has no different lenses where distance is adjusted but one lense, which's form and so focal distance is changed. And hence it too yields depth information for near objects.

Thats for example a limitation in 3d films (where you look at with shutter glasses, or polorized glasses). The focus (i.e. what is seen sharp) is given by the camera at recording time, if you look at something different the predefined focus in the 3d impression, then the focus doesnt follow. (That unfortunately causes nausea for me.)
Maybe this can be overcome in virtual reality if the eye tracker also measures your focus (though of course the focus is already determined by the angle of the eye's viewing direction. But maybe we assume an one eyed individuum )

Hm that raises for me the question, whether in actual virtual reality the non-focused areas are rendered blurry. Does anyone know?
bo198214
Tetronian

Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: Berlin - Germany

The eye guesses the distance by how much the cristaline (spelling?) is contracted. However, at rather close distances parallax helps a LOT. Try to touch the tips of two fingers from different hands with both eyes, then only with one. I'm sure you'll notice the difference, especially if you move the hands fast.

The only VR I've seen doesn't blur areas that aren't in your focus. Perhaps more advanced ones do it.
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian

Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

### Flir and lasered targeting combined

If connected to the visual cortex of the mind through nueron connectors will give an exact proximity and surface breath, depth and width will give an exact orientation of a given object. The draw back will be endorphan withdrawl when dis-engaged.
Russ1953
Dionian

Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:28 am

### Creativity

The essence of all innovation!
Russ1953
Dionian

Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:28 am

The draw back will be endorphan withdrawl when dis-engaged.

Why is that?

PWrong
Pentonian

Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia