Interesting tidbit from the Animatrix re: Second Renaissance "SPOILERS"
05-25-03, 07:05 PM
#1
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting tidbit from the Animatrix re: Second Renaissance "SPOILERS"
SPOLIERS FOR SECOND RENAISSANCE PART I:
Hey there,
Please forgive this post if something similar has been posted before. Anyway, after watching the Second Renaissance Part I, something odd struck me: the name of the city founded by the machines that were escaping their human opppressors was named "01," or as pronounced in the short, "zero one." I find this most interesting since you can also spell it as Zero-1, or even shorter, Z-1, which to me is like "ZI," the first two letters in ZION. It's in apt title if you consider the fact that the city is the refuge for human fleeing machine oppression. Don't know if it is anything of significance, but I thought that I'd just point it out.
Hey there,
Please forgive this post if something similar has been posted before. Anyway, after watching the Second Renaissance Part I, something odd struck me: the name of the city founded by the machines that were escaping their human opppressors was named "01," or as pronounced in the short, "zero one." I find this most interesting since you can also spell it as Zero-1, or even shorter, Z-1, which to me is like "ZI," the first two letters in ZION. It's in apt title if you consider the fact that the city is the refuge for human fleeing machine oppression. Don't know if it is anything of significance, but I thought that I'd just point it out.
05-25-03, 08:00 PM
#3
DVD Talk Special Edition
You can strengthen your point further if you notice that Zero-1 was built in the Middle East, the location of the historical Zion, which would also put it near the center of the Earth, at least on the map (As in near the Earth's core?)...
06-12-03, 08:04 PM
#5
Cool New Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"which would also put it near the center of the Earth, at least on the map (As in near the Earth's core?)..."
I am sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. The center of the Earth is, well, how to put it, "at the center" and therefore equidistant from any point on the surface of the Earth. No country on the surface can be said to be nearer the center than another (not that that has stopped people assuming that their culture and religion is at the center of the Earth, but that's just plain ignorance).
I am sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. The center of the Earth is, well, how to put it, "at the center" and therefore equidistant from any point on the surface of the Earth. No country on the surface can be said to be nearer the center than another (not that that has stopped people assuming that their culture and religion is at the center of the Earth, but that's just plain ignorance).
06-16-03, 04:48 PM
#6
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 4,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by avatar101
No country on the surface can be said to be nearer the center than another
No country on the surface can be said to be nearer the center than another
Seriously, though, this wasn't what RolloTomasi was saying; here "center" means the center of the conventional (i.e. with Asia on the right and the Americas on the left) two-dimensional map of the world.
06-16-03, 11:03 PM
#7
Cool New Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, when you say "conventional" you are talking about a specific projection used by the cartographer's predilections, and therefore have no intrinsic value as to what is in the center. The "conventional" map you are referring to, the Mercator projection, is a very distorted map that only shows areas closer to the Equator in their proper dimensions...anything else is horribly deformed and unusable to gauge where any center is. Anyway, this is not what he meant, as he clearly mentioned "closer to the center meaning to the Earth's core", which like I explained is a fallacy.
If you are interested in seeing what the Earth looks like in a proper map that keeps everything in its proper dimension check the DYMAXION map by the genius Buckminster Fuller, the only map that shows all the continents in their proper perspective without any distortion.
As per your "above sea level" commentary: I realize is a joke, but think about this. If the Earth were the size of an apple, and you could hold it in your hand, it would be extremely hard for you to feel the highest mountains on the Earth, inlcuding the Kilimanjaro. Thus their being farther from the Earth's core at this level makes the difference between them and the sea level countries negligible. BTW, the atmosphere ib the previous example would be almost 1/1000 of an inch's thick...our atmosphere is so precious and fragile, isn't it?
If you are interested in seeing what the Earth looks like in a proper map that keeps everything in its proper dimension check the DYMAXION map by the genius Buckminster Fuller, the only map that shows all the continents in their proper perspective without any distortion.
As per your "above sea level" commentary: I realize is a joke, but think about this. If the Earth were the size of an apple, and you could hold it in your hand, it would be extremely hard for you to feel the highest mountains on the Earth, inlcuding the Kilimanjaro. Thus their being farther from the Earth's core at this level makes the difference between them and the sea level countries negligible. BTW, the atmosphere ib the previous example would be almost 1/1000 of an inch's thick...our atmosphere is so precious and fragile, isn't it?
06-17-03, 04:46 PM
#11
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 4,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by avatar101
The "conventional" map you are referring to, the Mercator projection, is a very distorted map that only shows areas closer to the Equator in their proper dimensions...anything else is horribly deformed and unusable to gauge where any center is.
The "conventional" map you are referring to, the Mercator projection, is a very distorted map that only shows areas closer to the Equator in their proper dimensions...anything else is horribly deformed and unusable to gauge where any center is.
Anyway, this is not what he meant, as he clearly mentioned "closer to the center meaning to the Earth's core"
If you are interested in seeing what the Earth looks like in a proper map that keeps everything in its proper dimension check the DYMAXION map
As per your "above sea level" commentary: I realize is a joke, but think about this. If the Earth were the size of an apple, and you could hold it in your hand, it would be extremely hard for you to feel the highest mountains on the Earth, inlcuding the Kilimanjaro.
06-18-03, 02:18 AM
#12
Cool New Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Since the last remark in RolloTomasi's post was in parentheses, I assumed it was simply meant to associate the idea of being at the center of the map with being at the center of the world (i.e. at the Earth's core)."
hmmmm....the Earth's core, a metallic sphere rotating counterclockwise to the Earth's rotation, is hundreds of miles inside the Earth...I still don't "get" how something in the center of a sphere can be said to be in the "center" of a two dimensional representation of the Earth....the core is at the same distance from any point of the surface, regardless of what map you are using.
"Yes, but I don't quite see your point. In absolute terms the difference is not negligible although it doesn't amount to a high percentage increase."
So what you are saying is that being closer to the Earth's core makes that specific country somehow special? Using your rationale, the city of ZERO ONE should have been situated in Death Valley, not in Irak, famous for its mountains...being situated at the lowest point under sea level, they would be closest to the core (provided you grasp that the core is in the center of a 3 dimensional sphere...). Any way you look at it the reasoning is just plain faulty, friend. But please continue defending it, it is quite pleasing to discuss this...thanks!
hmmmm....the Earth's core, a metallic sphere rotating counterclockwise to the Earth's rotation, is hundreds of miles inside the Earth...I still don't "get" how something in the center of a sphere can be said to be in the "center" of a two dimensional representation of the Earth....the core is at the same distance from any point of the surface, regardless of what map you are using.
"Yes, but I don't quite see your point. In absolute terms the difference is not negligible although it doesn't amount to a high percentage increase."
So what you are saying is that being closer to the Earth's core makes that specific country somehow special? Using your rationale, the city of ZERO ONE should have been situated in Death Valley, not in Irak, famous for its mountains...being situated at the lowest point under sea level, they would be closest to the core (provided you grasp that the core is in the center of a 3 dimensional sphere...). Any way you look at it the reasoning is just plain faulty, friend. But please continue defending it, it is quite pleasing to discuss this...thanks!
06-18-03, 11:49 AM
#13
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mpls, MN
Posts: 6,830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another wrench...
The distance around the equator is greater than the distance around the Earth on a line perpendicular to the equator. So the Earth is not a perfect sphere in general shape, not even accounting for mountains and valleys.
Of course, all this discussion is predicated on a completely incorrect post above. I wonder if Rollo understands the concept of a sphere and what a "core" is, or if he just had brain freeze when he wrote that.
Of course, all this discussion is predicated on a completely incorrect post above. I wonder if Rollo understands the concept of a sphere and what a "core" is, or if he just had brain freeze when he wrote that.
06-18-03, 12:31 PM
#14
DVD Talk Special Edition
Yes, when I said that Zero-1 was close to the center of the Earth, I meant as in close to the center of a conventional perception of the Earth's surface, because obviously the Dymaxion projection is certainly not conventional. Neither is the Mercator, but the Mercator, at least, is extraordinarily useful as a navigational aid; I don't know any other use for the Dymaxion presentation besides "bringing cultures together". (Not that I'm disparaging that projection, mind you - I think it's rather elegant, and it can show global trends rather well, but for daily use, I think there are better projections.) Anyway, I think when people think of a map of the earth, they usually think of the Robinson projection, since it tends to look "right".
It was just a point, and not even my main one (the main one being about the "real" Zion being located in the Middle East). What I was trying to convey was that when one thinks of the Middle East, especially since it has the word "middle" in its name, one tends to associate it with concepts of the "Center", which is where the Matrix's Zion is supposedly located. And yes, I know that conventionally, the center of the Earth's surface is actually in the middle of the Atlantic, where the Prime Meridian and the Equator intersect, so the Middle East is actually pretty far. Of course, to buttress my point, the Matrix's Zion isn't even located near the core - it's four miles from the surface, which means it is thought to be near the center, but it really isn't. And yes, I know that the surface of a sphere doesn't really have a center - but we have to rely on some convention when we're talking about the earth, or we would sail off the edges of Buckminster Fuller's map
And anyway, I'm just buying into the Matrix philosophy (Look! The license plate, if you reflect it and convert it into binary, is 101 - that must be a sign by the Wachowskis! )
It was just a point, and not even my main one (the main one being about the "real" Zion being located in the Middle East). What I was trying to convey was that when one thinks of the Middle East, especially since it has the word "middle" in its name, one tends to associate it with concepts of the "Center", which is where the Matrix's Zion is supposedly located. And yes, I know that conventionally, the center of the Earth's surface is actually in the middle of the Atlantic, where the Prime Meridian and the Equator intersect, so the Middle East is actually pretty far. Of course, to buttress my point, the Matrix's Zion isn't even located near the core - it's four miles from the surface, which means it is thought to be near the center, but it really isn't. And yes, I know that the surface of a sphere doesn't really have a center - but we have to rely on some convention when we're talking about the earth, or we would sail off the edges of Buckminster Fuller's map
And anyway, I'm just buying into the Matrix philosophy (Look! The license plate, if you reflect it and convert it into binary, is 101 - that must be a sign by the Wachowskis!
)
Last edited by RolloTomasi; 06-18-03 at 12:46 PM.
06-18-03, 06:31 PM
#15
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 4,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by avatar101
I still don't "get" how something in the center of a sphere can be said to be in the "center" of a two dimensional representation of the Earth....the core is at the same distance from any point of the surface, regardless of what map you are using.
I still don't "get" how something in the center of a sphere can be said to be in the "center" of a two dimensional representation of the Earth....the core is at the same distance from any point of the surface, regardless of what map you are using.
So what you are saying is that being closer to the Earth's core makes that specific country somehow special?
Originally posted by avatar101
No country on the surface can be said to be nearer the center than another
No country on the surface can be said to be nearer the center than another
06-18-03, 09:45 PM
#16
Cool New Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Yes, when I said that Zero-1 was close to the center of the Earth, I meant as in close to the center of a conventional perception of the Earth's surface, because obviously the Dymaxion projection is certainly not conventional. Neither is the Mercator, but the Mercator, at least, is extraordinarily useful as a navigational aid; I don't know any other use for the Dymaxion presentation besides "bringing cultures together"
Actually, the Mercator projector is all but useless for navigation. In fact it has not been used since the 1500s, because of the heavy distortions it has as soon as you deviate from the Equator. Navigational maps are actually smaller representations of the concept used by the Dymaxion. Its advantage is that nobody had figured out how to accomodate no distortions in a single map of the entire planet until Fuller came about. Remember that the closest distance between two points is an arc (since we inhabit a sphere) and not a straight line, which is exactly what the Mercator projection (which you claim is extraordinarily useful for navigation) represents. With a Mercator, you would be adding hundreds of miles of travel for no reason other than the inherent distortion of the map. Believe me, it is not useful even if you were traveling on a sail boat. A real navigation map has to represent exact proportions with no distortions as you get away from the center (or any point). This is exactly what the Dymaxion does.
for my friend Tyler:
"There's really nothing more to it than the concept of "center", as in midpoint"
right, but I was responding to this comment you wrote:
"being at the center of the map with being at the center of the world (i.e. at the Earth's core)."
I was responding to your comment of the center being also at the center of the Earth's core, not at anybody saying anything only about the center. Strange that this is still going on...funny. Let's keep it going!
Actually, the Mercator projector is all but useless for navigation. In fact it has not been used since the 1500s, because of the heavy distortions it has as soon as you deviate from the Equator. Navigational maps are actually smaller representations of the concept used by the Dymaxion. Its advantage is that nobody had figured out how to accomodate no distortions in a single map of the entire planet until Fuller came about. Remember that the closest distance between two points is an arc (since we inhabit a sphere) and not a straight line, which is exactly what the Mercator projection (which you claim is extraordinarily useful for navigation) represents. With a Mercator, you would be adding hundreds of miles of travel for no reason other than the inherent distortion of the map. Believe me, it is not useful even if you were traveling on a sail boat. A real navigation map has to represent exact proportions with no distortions as you get away from the center (or any point). This is exactly what the Dymaxion does.
for my friend Tyler:
"There's really nothing more to it than the concept of "center", as in midpoint"
right, but I was responding to this comment you wrote:
"being at the center of the map with being at the center of the world (i.e. at the Earth's core)."
I was responding to your comment of the center being also at the center of the Earth's core, not at anybody saying anything only about the center. Strange that this is still going on...funny. Let's keep it going!
06-19-03, 07:59 PM
#17
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 4,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that I'm incredibly drunk (Midsummer night in Finland) right now and find this conversation completely useless anyway is probably proof enough that we should give it a rest.
