4 ms·
Which is all wrong. The monolith in 2001 had dimensions in ratios of 1:4:9 [and continuing into other dimensions...]. Why the heck would you go to all the wor
by saalweachter 6y ago
Which is all wrong.
The monolith in 2001 had dimensions in ratios of 1:4:9 [and continuing into other dimensions...].
Why the heck would you go to all the work of putting a monolith of the wrong shape out there?
- rbanffy 6y ago1:4:9 is too 2000's. 1:9:49 is what you want these days.
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoCan you please explain the significance?
- shemnon42 6y agotelevision ratios joke. 4:3 became 16:9 for widescreen. Further from square and closer to the "golden ratio", so make something closer with different prime squares. 1:22:33 becomes 1:33:77
- rbanffy 6y agoIn reality I was joking about fashion. The new trend in monoliths is a metallic finish and slender proportions, skipping one prime square - The original is 1²:2²:3² and the new one is 1²:3²:7² (skips primes 2 and 5). The dimensions continue, of course. In Clarke's 2010 it's kind of assumed it'd mean it'd be integers, but the new one fits better with primes.
- slightwinder 6y agoNobody prooved it has any relation to 2001. It's not even black, why do people even assume it must have some connection with that story?
- Zenbit_UX 6y agoBecause of the hilarious implication that the installer believe intelligent life had not yet been seeded in the Utah area.