END OF AN ERA, FRACTALFORUMS.COM IS CONTINUED ON FRACTALFORUMS.ORG

On the top of the tower, the whipped cream seems to converge.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/DOPnOh-OruA&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/DOPnOh-OruA&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

Thinking about it and looking at the iteration-sequences:

It looks like (if you look at the inside) whipped cream is simply an area of growth, happening after the fractal details in the previous level of whipped cream got too tiny.
Maybe, this happens after fractal detail reaches a special generally calculable, uhm..., fractalillity, which could possibly help to find "perfect" iteration levels, where most details in the current layers are present.

Maybe, "tools" could be found to "cut" parts out of the set like single nerves from bodies.

In case of the 2D-set, if you imagine a person to have a surgery, who comes from the flatlands, it would be a piece of cake to do so: You wouldn't even have to cut him open as you already see what's on the inside and could directly alter the inside that way.
Surgeries would be as simple as ever possible.

But try to find a single blood vessel in a 3D-human being. - Tools to cut open without harming too much are needed. So, let's develop nice "knife"-tools to lay free structures of the boundary, hidden under other levels of detail...

Actually, what's whipped cream in the Mbulb could be comparable with connective tissue in our bodies - those thin skin-like structures just hold other parts of us together. In between, we have hour organs of different fractality

I'd rather directly go for 5D as many of those sets need 5 Dimensions to be laid flat.
You know: It's one way to get the brain to refactor 3D-views as for that it already has a certain fixed (more or less flat) area, but even if you could send 4D-images to the brain, finding a way to adapt the optical field to allow such a projection, how would you get it to learn 4D-movements? As long as it doesn't, all the interpretations will look 3D, as the 4th Dimension doesn't change.

I don't say it's impossible, but you really'd have to play with more than just the visual system. Also the movement-system needs to be affected...

"Easiest" would be to use "3D" glasses which however project 4D-stuff to your eyes and one of those headbands, measuring brainwaves (EEG however not too accurate, afaik) together with muscular "waves" (MEG) and uses that data to control a computer.....

Basically, to "move", through that 4D-environment, you need to "think to move". The computer interprets the data from the brain, the brain interprets the visual data obtained and by that, you could learn

However, I really don't know how you would do those 4D-pictures... Just by rotating around it like with a 3D-object, you don't get a full 4D-vision.

You'd very likely need a mix of 3D and 4D images, learn "both" (or are there more) kinds of rotation in 4D and apply those to 3D....


\OT end

4D perspective isn't actually hard:

Just the same equations:

first two Dimensions are undistorted and the other two have perspective distortion

I once tried to draw 4D perspective hypercubes by hand

Worked not too bad. All you need is two points of infinity rather than 1.

You could also add perspective to the first two dimensions which in some pieces of art is a trick to let you uncertain about where's up and where's down and such.

AFAIK, an example are those pieces of art of infinite staircases with monsters going everywhere. You can't be sure if you're looking down or straight forward or even up due to perspective irritations

\second attempt on OT end

  xD

Well... I guess, as there is no way to have 3 eyes, which, with a shift also in the 4th axis for the 3rd eye in theory would allow 3x2D -> 4D vision, you actually'll HAVE to borrow the 2 eyes

Perspective would be extended to just an other point.

light rules like reflection/refraction and stuff would work the same as they already are restricted to the plane between the ray and the surface-normal of the reflecting/refracting object at the point, the ray hits the object (long explanation for a very short meaning xD).
From the optical point of view, 4D probably isn't that much more complex than 3D. The equations stay more or less the same but things (assuming a monte carlo-style raytracer) will need way longer to clear up.

interesting would be some strange reflection and refraction (prism and lens) setups to direct to-us-invisible 4D-rays directly into the 3D world.
would just be a matter of directing rays to a 0-valued 4th dimension. The simple, trivial hyper"plane" (our space) which has the equation (w,x,y,z as coordinates) z=0

In the first part of my animation i simulate the  continuous realm of iterations by decreasing the escape distance in the iteration itself.

Great sequence twinbee. If you look very carefully you will see that surfaces are not being added they are being peeled off. The snow effects represent the layer below that has potential to be shed and the iteration and rules have not defined a stable form. Thus it appears to froth when in fact it is evaporating away in a fog.

Wow!  Does the concept of a "fractional" iteration make sense?  For example, I'd love to see twinbee's sequence of renders made into a movie that evolved smoothly...  but you'd have to be able to render versions at iteration = 9, 9.01, 9.02, etc.