Mystery Motormouth
Registered Senior Member
Which later turned into a horrible rant about all kinds of crap. Maybe I can use it as a conversation piece since I'm new here.
Starting off, I was just amazed that I could finally visualize a damned hypercube so I decided to inform some "friends" at a different forum. This failed miserably, and thus I am here.
Okay, now ignore the vertices completely, they provide the outlines of the two cubes that are connected by corners (as if connected to eachother with strings). Focus on the highlighted shapes and what you know about color dithering.
This is the 3d representation of a hypercube on a two dimensional plane, this is not fundamental hypercube observation at all. The REAL purpose behind the stereoscopic hypercube (especially the animated ones) is to provide a dynamic visual representation of viewing a 3d object from all angles at once.
So, back to my shitty visual aid, yellow is front, blue is back, and there is no green. THERE IS NO GREEN, it's only to help you see the two cubes.
There is no green.
Now, concerning the visuals at hand: What's interesting is that I made the two halves isometric to eachother, while the halves themselves were based upon two focus points on the imaginary horizon, creating a crooked effect. As if a moron did not know how to use the grid tool properly, but he DID! Oh yes he did, I just forgot to avoid isometrics.
(My formula for the placement of the second half was right 32 pixels, up 64 pixels, thus the refference to being isometric, since all angles correspond to this formula, and not the formula of simulated first person perspective which I attempted with the two separate shapes that you can see as the blue and yellow.)
If the need arises, I will create a purely isometric hypercube instead, I like being consistent, it makes me feel secure about my minor accomplishments for the day. Like throwing the piece of toilet paper away into which I had masturbated to, the deed is not complete until I had to partake on the cleanup aspect and succeed in fear of being caught. (Fear, relating to awkward family moments which I claim to avoid, yet somehow they manage to sneak up... some may say I have no credibility, but a compulsive lying disorder is not necessarily a bad thing, I am simply guarding you from what is wrong.)
I believe the second coming of Christ resulted in a crucifixion, only an imaginary one, as was the second coming itself in it's entirety. Such is the case with the first coming. The second crucifixion took place on an unraveled hypercube instead of a cross, and for good reason! This is one of the most rational statements I have ever made, the artistic acceptance of the origins of quantum mechanics flourished the new concepts to minds for whom these very things were previously unthought of. An enlightment period so to speak, such as the supposed positive actions of Jesus and the outcome of those actions, the positive awakening of geometric forms from higher methods of comprehention were gaining the attention they not only deserve, but the attention that will drive the human race forward, as far forward that we as a species are willing to go. Christus Hypercubus, perhaps, in my theory, but stated in a factual manner, truly was the second coming of Christ. A sort of mockery of the similarities of the second and third dimension, a two dimensional canvas representing a bizarre and foreign landscape instead of a three dimensional hill (as percieved by us, the human species).
The mockery of the two dimensional canvas focuses solely on one pun: perhaps we're just worms.
The influence of magnetism in the painting, perhaps a refference to supergravity is yet another suggestion that rationalizes my concept since magnetism is supposedly (by my understanding) a byproduct of supergravity, which is (as I recall) related to the string theory, which is likely related to the Kaluza Klein theory, which all leads back to the original foundation of quantum mechanics. There is alot of thought provoking imagery in this piece, and this is only what comes to mind when viewing such a small digital rendition of it, at such a pathetic quality and size. So much more genius could be involved in the painting, so many obvious messages of rationality that I can relate with. Dali was either a genius, or one of the very few truly talented artists who created what they envisioned and accomplished what they set out to do instead of allowing random chance guide their paintings into becoming manipulated by the movements of their hand, wrist, arm, and everything anatomical. (Such is the case with all of my creations.)
I wish I could use hyperspheres in my art, because spheres are a much more natural shape, such form is hard to obtain in digital art. Yet a hypersphere has infinite vertices, which would create a pair of strange spots joining the two three dimensional objects (visually speaking, in "reality" it is the act of joining the visible front, and nonvisible back of the object). I've thought of simplifying the vertices by only displaying the main two on the outer edge as if visualizing the canvas in it's true two dimensional form, but this takes away alot of the versatility of the four dimensional shape, such as the one seen in the hypercube, since no matter how you manipulate two spheres, all sideslook identical. (And attempting to separate various parts of both spheres in terms of color would again be very limiting to the freedom of hypercubes as an *artistic element.)
* artistic element being a geometric shape, which is my pereferred tool in creating art, unlike inspiration by nature and various other things other people may obtain.
So, in closing, is there any decent original thinking here, or am I just a rambling idiot?
Starting off, I was just amazed that I could finally visualize a damned hypercube so I decided to inform some "friends" at a different forum. This failed miserably, and thus I am here.
Okay, now ignore the vertices completely, they provide the outlines of the two cubes that are connected by corners (as if connected to eachother with strings). Focus on the highlighted shapes and what you know about color dithering.
This is the 3d representation of a hypercube on a two dimensional plane, this is not fundamental hypercube observation at all. The REAL purpose behind the stereoscopic hypercube (especially the animated ones) is to provide a dynamic visual representation of viewing a 3d object from all angles at once.
So, back to my shitty visual aid, yellow is front, blue is back, and there is no green. THERE IS NO GREEN, it's only to help you see the two cubes.
There is no green.
Now, concerning the visuals at hand: What's interesting is that I made the two halves isometric to eachother, while the halves themselves were based upon two focus points on the imaginary horizon, creating a crooked effect. As if a moron did not know how to use the grid tool properly, but he DID! Oh yes he did, I just forgot to avoid isometrics.
(My formula for the placement of the second half was right 32 pixels, up 64 pixels, thus the refference to being isometric, since all angles correspond to this formula, and not the formula of simulated first person perspective which I attempted with the two separate shapes that you can see as the blue and yellow.)
If the need arises, I will create a purely isometric hypercube instead, I like being consistent, it makes me feel secure about my minor accomplishments for the day. Like throwing the piece of toilet paper away into which I had masturbated to, the deed is not complete until I had to partake on the cleanup aspect and succeed in fear of being caught. (Fear, relating to awkward family moments which I claim to avoid, yet somehow they manage to sneak up... some may say I have no credibility, but a compulsive lying disorder is not necessarily a bad thing, I am simply guarding you from what is wrong.)
I believe the second coming of Christ resulted in a crucifixion, only an imaginary one, as was the second coming itself in it's entirety. Such is the case with the first coming. The second crucifixion took place on an unraveled hypercube instead of a cross, and for good reason! This is one of the most rational statements I have ever made, the artistic acceptance of the origins of quantum mechanics flourished the new concepts to minds for whom these very things were previously unthought of. An enlightment period so to speak, such as the supposed positive actions of Jesus and the outcome of those actions, the positive awakening of geometric forms from higher methods of comprehention were gaining the attention they not only deserve, but the attention that will drive the human race forward, as far forward that we as a species are willing to go. Christus Hypercubus, perhaps, in my theory, but stated in a factual manner, truly was the second coming of Christ. A sort of mockery of the similarities of the second and third dimension, a two dimensional canvas representing a bizarre and foreign landscape instead of a three dimensional hill (as percieved by us, the human species).
The mockery of the two dimensional canvas focuses solely on one pun: perhaps we're just worms.
The influence of magnetism in the painting, perhaps a refference to supergravity is yet another suggestion that rationalizes my concept since magnetism is supposedly (by my understanding) a byproduct of supergravity, which is (as I recall) related to the string theory, which is likely related to the Kaluza Klein theory, which all leads back to the original foundation of quantum mechanics. There is alot of thought provoking imagery in this piece, and this is only what comes to mind when viewing such a small digital rendition of it, at such a pathetic quality and size. So much more genius could be involved in the painting, so many obvious messages of rationality that I can relate with. Dali was either a genius, or one of the very few truly talented artists who created what they envisioned and accomplished what they set out to do instead of allowing random chance guide their paintings into becoming manipulated by the movements of their hand, wrist, arm, and everything anatomical. (Such is the case with all of my creations.)
I wish I could use hyperspheres in my art, because spheres are a much more natural shape, such form is hard to obtain in digital art. Yet a hypersphere has infinite vertices, which would create a pair of strange spots joining the two three dimensional objects (visually speaking, in "reality" it is the act of joining the visible front, and nonvisible back of the object). I've thought of simplifying the vertices by only displaying the main two on the outer edge as if visualizing the canvas in it's true two dimensional form, but this takes away alot of the versatility of the four dimensional shape, such as the one seen in the hypercube, since no matter how you manipulate two spheres, all sideslook identical. (And attempting to separate various parts of both spheres in terms of color would again be very limiting to the freedom of hypercubes as an *artistic element.)
* artistic element being a geometric shape, which is my pereferred tool in creating art, unlike inspiration by nature and various other things other people may obtain.
So, in closing, is there any decent original thinking here, or am I just a rambling idiot?