Even the solar system is much, much longer than it is deep. Could it be that crews naturally align their ships with the "up" and "down" of the system (or galaxy) they're in?
It's been further confirmed this year. Flat and homogeneous no Vertical vector whatsoever. We really got to update this trope.
First of all, the WMAP is still a probe, and I would take everything it reports with a huge grain of salt, seeing especially that its a probe, is still subject to malfunction, it is bound to the x axis of every stellar body, and therefore could not supply us with enough information about the W axis, and the true shape of the universe. Also, I very much doubt this official report, as it sounds like something from the Onion, or other parody site. And the fact that Wikipedia, an already shaky operation as too verification of information, has accepted it as fact is absolutely embarrassing. In any case, I am most sure that the universe exists in all directions, but we only see it along the x axis because that's the way gravity pulls things along, in addition to our entire history taking place on one plane.
Edited by 71.17.68.254
The WMAP results are legit, but people here are misinterpreting them in the most hilarious way possible. When cosmologists say that the universe is flat, they do not mean that it is 2 dimensional.
Hurgablurg, WMAP shows that space is flat and smooth, but it is also proven that Quantum Foam, AKA the fabric of the universe is 2D itself. At small levels and high energies it shows that Quantum is the fabric of space, so there is no W axis in space. However in 4-space which is not true at all, there is a W axis, but that is in Hyperspace, not real life.
WMAP's results (as well as prior missions (COBE, Planck, etc.), and quite likely future ones will continue the trend of refining the results of prior ones rather than refuting them) show that the "universe is flat" is referring to its (absence of) curvature in four dimensions, not three.
scourge of broken links.
Removed what I feel is discussion to here. As usual cutting and pasting so that it can be discussed/put back if need be.
- For good reason: as opposed to conventional vehicles, which remain stationary, mobile suits are constantly moving and can shift their direction in little over a second or two. In actuality attacks have been made against mobile suit "blind spots", such as the back or underneath; for example, the first series had Amuro attempt to attack Char from behind in one of their later fights, only for Char (being a Newtype, he detected the attack) to raise his Gelgoog's twin beam sword overhead to defend. As well, Gundam 00 had Ali al-Saachez constantly attacking the open areas of his targets, such as the back, sides and yes, above and below, and the only time he managed to fully exploit an opening was against the first Lockon, who was blind in his right eye and therefore open to attack from that angle. And contrary to the above claim (and the Zeon engineer it originated from), the legs of a mobile suit tend to hold additional thrusters and apogee motors (smaller thrusters used for directional control)note , so they're functionally more than just landing platforms. Also worth mentioning is the limbs are for AMBAC, thrusterless reaction masses that can be used to turn the main thrusters (legs) and main weapons to other directions, which is an upgraded version of the current reaction wheel/momentum wheel technology. The legs are much much more than landing platforms, they are the vector thrusters and reaction mass systems.
you guys shoudl add enders game movie to tropes list bacause it averted it.
during one of battles, IF distracted formid fleet with drones and attacked using main fleet from below planetary ring.
Edited by 83.6.198.253
Why I googled "why is everything in star trek so two dimensional?" is because of my long term frustration with dumb reactionary strategies portrayed in this Sci-Fi TV series. TNG, DS 9, and Voyager (so far.) Blast waves that are clearly 2D, the standard reaction? Turn around and run away. About as effective as the animal on a road caught in headlights doing the same. You will be run down. Turn aside? (for the animal, or up/down, for the Star Trek vessels) Survival.
But actually, the various wave phenomena in the Star Trek Universe should have been 3D/spherical in nature, not 2D/annular, so no escape either way. Guess I'm just (again) frustrated with poor science editing. Get it right, folks, so our kids can know how things work.
I'm not seeing how the image shows 2d space. It's just two people staring at a blue screen that may or may not be space, the caption's not helping either. There's an example at the bottom that explained it for me but it was just two lines of text out of a bazillion, hard to see if you knew where to look. I was thinking a screenshot from one of those old school arcade games would be better, like galaga.
Edited by ticktrick
Thanks to WMAP, we know know the universe is flat (with only a 0.5 margin of error). What does that mean for this trope, now that space is pretty much confirmed to actually two dimensional?
Hide / Show Replies