Sci-fi peeps...have you noticed...

[JC]

....space is 2-dimensional? At least on most space-type shows. It's always "starboard" or "port" not "up" or "down" (or whatever those terms might be). I mean, they give coordinates in
3 planes, but the shows typically only involve 2 dimensions. "His patterns would seem to indicate....2-dimensional thinking" -ST II, Wrath of Khan. Like on one of tonight's Enterprise episodes,
"there's a distress call to port" Why is the call never from "below"? or "above"? Ships hardly ever attack from above or below (exception: ST:TNG, "The Best of Both Worlds"). Maybe we as
an audience are not capable of 3-dimensional thinking, so think the producers of such.

/rant

JC

 

[TheOmegaCode]

I don't think that is as big a problem now... But yeah, what do you expect, they were on strings!

 

[Insane3D]

Hmmmmm....interesting. Never really gave it any thought...

 

[rgwalt]

Well, in their defense, when the coordinates are given to the con, they are in two sets. You can describe a point in space by referring to how many degrees from 0 in both the horizontal and vertical directions. (think about two intersecting, perpendicular circles)

Also, if you look at the small scale space battles, like when the defiant or a runabout was attacting a much larger vessel, they tend to fight in a 3-D type geometry. The larger vessels don't fight in a 3D geometry because of the inertia caused by manuvering from horizontal to vertical and back again at high speed. Also, except near the galactic core, most star systems lie in the galactic plane. There are many, many more stars stretching out horizontally from earth than are above or below us, so it stands to reason that there are more habitable worlds in these directions.

Ryan

 

[Zim Hosein]

<< Well, in their defense, when the coordinates are given to the con, they are in two sets. You can describe a point in space by referring to how many degrees from 0 in both the horizontal and vertical directions. (think about two intersecting, perpendicular circles)

Also, if you look at the small scale space battles, like when the defiant or a runabout was attacting a much larger vessel, they tend to fight in a 3-D type geometry. The larger vessels don't fight in a 3D geometry because of the inertia caused by manuvering from horizontal to vertical and back again at high speed. Also, except near the galactic core, most star systems lie in the galactic plane. There are many, many more stars stretching out horizontally from earth than are above or below us, so it stands to reason that there are more habitable worlds in these directions.
>>



Breathe rgwalt, breathe

 

[TheOmegaCode]

<< Well, in their defense, when the coordinates are given to the con, they are in two sets. You can describe a point in space by referring to how many degrees from 0 in both the horizontal and vertical directions. (think about two intersecting, perpendicular circles)

Also, if you look at the small scale space battles, like when the defiant or a runabout was attacting a much larger vessel, they tend to fight in a 3-D type geometry. The larger vessels don't fight in a 3D geometry because of the inertia caused by manuvering from horizontal to vertical and back again at high speed. Also, except near the galactic core, most star systems lie in the galactic plane. There are many, many more stars stretching out horizontally from earth than are above or below us, so it stands to reason that there are more habitable worlds in these directions.

Ryan >>


n3rd

hehehe

 

[rgwalt]

<<

<< Well, in their defense, when the coordinates are given to the con, they are in two sets. You can describe a point in space by referring to how many degrees from 0 in both the horizontal and vertical directions. (think about two intersecting, perpendicular circles)

Also, if you look at the small scale space battles, like when the defiant or a runabout was attacting a much larger vessel, they tend to fight in a 3-D type geometry. The larger vessels don't fight in a 3D geometry because of the inertia caused by manuvering from horizontal to vertical and back again at high speed. Also, except near the galactic core, most star systems lie in the galactic plane. There are many, many more stars stretching out horizontally from earth than are above or below us, so it stands to reason that there are more habitable worlds in these directions.
>>



Breathe rgwalt, breathe >>



LOL, I guess I really let my nerdyness shine through with this post, but in my defense JC brought the topic up. It comes from reading a lot of sci-fi when I was younger.

Thanks for the new sig material.

Ryan

 

[silent tone]

You really can't let this stuff bother you while you're watching. When I first watched ST when I was in jr high, everything seemed fine, but now I can see a lot of holes. 3D space is rarely used, except for those small vs big ship battles. Apparently everybody travels with the same roll angle relative to the galaxy. No matter where you are, there's always a dramatic light shining off from the side about 15 degrees above the ship. No matter how badly damaged a ship is(or functioning at all), the artificial gravity always works. Almost everybody speaks english, even if the universal translator isn't around.


<< Also, except near the galactic core, most star systems lie in the galactic plane. There are many, many more stars stretching out horizontally from earth than are above or below us, so it stands to reason that there are more habitable worlds in these directions. >>

So do people in canada and antarctica see fewer stars than we do around the equator? Is our solar system's plane aligned with the plane of our galaxy?

 

[Zim Hosein]

<< Thanks for the new sig material.
Ryan
>>



You're welcome Ryan, I'm touched that you used a post of mine in your sig

 

[ChinamanatNCSU]

<< You really can't let this stuff bother you while you're watching. When I first watched ST when I was in jr high, everything seemed fine, but now I can see a lot of holes. 3D space is rarely used, except for those small vs big ship battles. Apparently everybody travels with the same roll angle relative to the galaxy. No matter where you are, there's always a dramatic light shining off from the side about 15 degrees above the ship. No matter how badly damaged a ship is(or functioning at all), the artificial gravity always works. Almost everybody speaks english, even if the universal translator isn't around. >>


Don't forget that explosions in space always make noise, even when its impossible in the vacuum...

 

[rgwalt]

<<

<< Thanks for the new sig material.
Ryan
>>



You're welcome Ryan, I'm touched that you used a post of mine in your sig >>

 

[rgwalt]

<< << Also, except near the galactic core, most star systems lie in the galactic plane. There are many, many more stars stretching out horizontally from earth than are above or below us, so it stands to reason that there are more habitable worlds in these directions. >>

So do people in canada and antarctica see fewer stars than we do around the equator? Is our solar system's plane aligned with the plane of our galaxy? >>



I honestly don't know if our solar system is aligned with the galactic plane or not, but I would imagine that it is fairly close. If you think about it though, it is all a matter of a frame of reference... If you were to enter a planetary system, you would likely match the plane the planets are in, so just by rotating the "camara" everythign would appear horizontal and people wouldn't have to tilt their heads when watching it on TV.

Wow, I'm getting progressively more nerdy in this post, but I'm not done yet... About people in antartica and canada... while they don't see less/more stars necessarily, they see radically different skies than we do. The southern hemisphere has a very different sky than the northern hemisphere at a given time. Finally, the people at the poles should still be able to see the stars in the galactic plane by looking closer to the horizon.

There, I'm done being a dork for this post.

Ryan

 

[JC]

<< There, I'm done being a dork for this post. >>



No, no, not quite yet

Here's another recent 2D effect that should certainly be 3D, and often isn't coplanar with the galactic equator....take the "SE" version of SW: ROTJ f'rinstance. How about the new FX
with the expanding ring after the explosion of the death star? ST is also guilty of this effect (e.g. explosion of Praxus). I'm with you on your galactic equator theory, but the plane of the
galaxy is likely quite a few light years thick...at least sometimes you'd want to travel in the Z-axis.

JC

 

[Ameesh]

well in star trek when they call headings it is in 3d (thats what the "mark" is for), when they fight it is 3d, when the approach each they face each other with one axis having a common value because it makes sure niether ship has the tactical advantage. if your weapons are distibuted evenly on the bottom as they are on the top (as any good design would induce) then you would want both phaser banks able to attack with relative ease. thats why you many times see two starfleet ships with differnt z axis but not a star fleet ship and a ferengi, especially when there is hostile intent.

 

[apoppin]

I really think al lot of it has to do with the practicality of filming it for a 2D screen. Notice Star Wars is pretty much "guilty" of this also.

If there was a lot of action above and below as well as side-to-side, you'd at least need an IMAX type screen and it might be pretty confusing for the viewer . . .

 

[GermyBoy]

Pretty good observation.