SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Christopher Snow · 12-29-08, 01:43 AM

I think it's largely left up to your own mind...and perhaps to what influences you entertain re: Science and math.

As best I remember the proportions of said monoliths were always 1-3-9. 1 thin by 3 wide by 9 long. A clear mathematical relationship between the three faces/sides.

The SIGNIFICANCE of said relationship was never explained, as far as I knew, except for the obvious one: It was significant simply because it EXISTED--it was clearly a mathematical (intelligence derived relationship), and not just a random one.

To put it another way (for those who might have missed it: An astronomical object with proportions 1:3:9 MUST be the product of an intelligent force...and really cannot be the product of random nature.

Kubrick hardly went out a limb to explain it here, BTW...he just took it for granted that the observation would be made.

Well, I just made it, even if those thousands who preceded me all whiffed (and I'm sure most of them did not).

---

Having said all that^...IMO, 2001 was mildly overrated. And 2010 was well UNDERRATED, by the same token.

2010 certainly did deliver in suspense and involvement.

CS

12-29-08, 01:43 AM	#3
Christopher Snow Engineer Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 201 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	I think it's largely left up to your own mind...and perhaps to what influences you entertain re: Science and math. As best I remember the proportions of said monoliths were always 1-3-9. 1 thin by 3 wide by 9 long. A clear mathematical relationship between the three faces/sides. The SIGNIFICANCE of said relationship was never explained, as far as I knew, except for the obvious one: It was significant simply because it EXISTED--it was clearly a mathematical (intelligence derived relationship), and not just a random one. To put it another way (for those who might have missed it: An astronomical object with proportions 1:3:9 MUST be the product of an intelligent force...and really cannot be the product of random nature. Kubrick hardly went out a limb to explain it here, BTW...he just took it for granted that the observation would be made. Well, I just made it, even if those thousands who preceded me all whiffed (and I'm sure most of them did not). --- Having said all that^...IMO, 2001 was mildly overrated. And 2010 was well UNDERRATED, by the same token. 2010 certainly did deliver in suspense and involvement. CS Last edited by Christopher Snow; 12-29-08 at 01:54 AM.