Forget 3-D. Try 1-D!

[madmax41094]

Fun fact: We exist in four dimensions, not three dimensions.

Also, 1D is very possible to depict. It's a straight line that connects two points that lie on the same plane. If you've been through elementary school you would have done this plenty of times.

[Coastergeekperson04]

@madmax41094 4D is time. Time is motion. 4D is motion. I am tired of idiots who say "no ur an idiot 4d is time not moving u fuckin idiot" when they don't even know what they hell they are talking about.

[Randomguy578]

this is 2d were not that non-smart

[zwete]

Well, the story of most Hollywood films is already in one dimension.

[DragonMagi]

This video made my inner science geek rage.

[poyp777]

everything is in 3D because we exist in the third dimension therefore everything in our universe has 3 dimensions

[aaabatry]

thats actually 2D.. 1D would be just ONE straight line

[martinsre11]

@aaabatry 1D would only have length OR width... it ain't depictable

[1Nekit1]

nig

[Toasterman247]

getting 1D would be like divinding by zero.

[ElectroIsMyMusic]

hahaha clever :P

[thatguy0810]

only the blue line is 1D, 2D is height and width, then for 3D depth is added

[Umplestiltskin]

a line is a perfectly reasonable representation of 1d, just the same way that 3d movies are simply representations of depth. The first one is 1D, the rest are 2D.

[mitthar]

@McJaews yes, you are wrong. when you saw the line, it had height (about 1/16 of an inch) and width (the length of the screen) and no known depth. as stated a few times.... 1d is a near impossible. we are as close to 1d as we are absolute zero.

[Astrox123]

1d is 1 dimension - only height, only width or only depth. It's impossible to have height without width or width without hight and you need both for depth.

[Zander101084]

who thought that was a girl there at 1:29

[sermerlin1]

whats the name of the movie at the end with stiven sigal?

[llamasATwalmart]

The light sabers looked 3-D, LoL.

[jjovereats]

2d shapes (even 3d solids) are defined by 1d points.

[DodsonHere]

I would assume that 1D would be an infinitely small point.

[Gr1zz3m]

sadly, this is much better than a lot of the crap being produced today

[annaf1973]

well,that kinda sounds like makoto.

[mrm4ny]

Fail. Research 1D first before you decide to make a joke about it...

[UglySparks]

1D is width only

Drawing a line on a graph is the only way I can think to explain it

its not the line you draw, its the points it represents

[drrobertoboogie97]

Don't forget that time is a dimension too

[Nintencrow]

@drrobertoboogie97 No, fuck you.

[drrobertoboogie97]

@Nintencrow No, fuck you too.

[manmandude9]

a 1d object is ONLY wide... 2d is wide and tall... and 3d is wide, tall and long...

[jinpayne]

This should be called minimalist movie trailers.

[jinpayne]

Technically this is all 3D if we are living in the 3rd dimension, even the pixels on your screen have a length width and microscopic height.

[thebigboss1212]

How is 1d even possible? 

[DelendaCarthago]

@thebigboss1212 Nope, the onlty thing that has an only dimension is the POINT on a surface in geometry

[TheMaxi3234]

@DelendaCarthago wrong, 3d= length,width, height 2d=length ,width 1d= length only ONE dimension. a point has no dimension as for a line only has one.

[alfsal67]

Even if not 1-D the ending was entertaining.

On another note, the 3-D movies are not really 3-D, it's all optcial illusion and percieved depth which isnt there.

[helenight]

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooo­ooooooooooooooooooooooooool loved the end!

[lovrich1988]

Haha gr8 but this is still 2D .

1D means ONE DIMENSION which doesn't exists in ur universe...

[miffolol]

3 words: Hard to kill

[DuckTheSuck]

just shut up and watch the video... frickin scientists...(random muttering)

[JeremyB796]

1D would only have a length!!! not even a strand of a DNA chromosome would be in 1D

2D has L x W and thats what this video shows...

1D would be impossible to see or understand so it is completely impossible in this universe...(actually 2D is too but we see it just because TV's and such only display light at you eyes and not a true object)

[bossoholic]

@JeremyB796 DNA chromosome is 3D (in real life). Very little width and very little height compared to the tiny length, but still 3D

[JeremyB796]

@bossoholic when i said NOT EVEN a dna chromosome would be in 1d i was saying that it is not... ok... so im just trying to prove a point... i said that it was in 2d and not 1d

[007Danikiller007]

steven seagal as COCK PUNCHER!!!!

[TheThunderWall]

If 3-D is LxCxA, and 2D is LxC, then 1D is only L?

[abobeck]

There's no such thing as 1-D. Every physical or imaginable object has at least 2 dimensions.

[thenashus4]

who cares if it's not '1-D' it wouldn't have been as funny if they said '2-D'

[Nikola9393]

This is not 1-d , 1-d is possible only in theory , every line on the clip has it's own lenght and hight , the hight can be 1mm but it still is 1 nm , it still is the hight of the object... So , 1-D isn't even possible to imagine ... :)

[ilovebitchcakes]

Steven Seagal is the fuckin' man.

[thehateu]

that made me giggle

[xxVictoriexx]

this is 2D, but who cares it's funny!

[foxx312]

Who cares if this isn't 1D? This is freakin funny xD.

[McJaews]

even the first one is 2d. 1d is impossible to depict.

[Extricate]

@McJaews no, its not. Just put 2 piece of paper of different color one partially covering the other. On the edge between the front paper and back one, there will be a line, which is immeasurably thin (no height) and yet contains a certain size (length). That'd be the most adequate of a 1-D environment.

[McJaews]

@Extricate And when you say immeasurably thin, you mean that you believe anything in the physical realm is "immeasurable"?

If you wish to prove anything you need to be able to measure it or at least make a logical deduction as proof of its existance. My point being that if you call something like "a thin line between two pieces of paper of different color" immeasurable, then you haven't tried hard enough to measure it^^

[Extricate]

@McJaews Well, then try it yourself and prove me it's got thickness ; )

[Dorgles52]

@Extricate if you went down to the atomic level and looked at it, the paper would be very rough and you couldn't make out a perfect "line" of it, but there is still a vertical space between the two pieces, be it a few atoms tall.

[kidzukurenaidatael]

@McJaews You could do it by using the size of an object to depict the movie. Like just have a circle in the middle and have the only variation be the size of it; that would be 1d... The resulting image would be 2d but there would only be a variation in 1 dimension... Of course this depends on how one would like to define a dimention... Although I do agree that everything in that movie indeed is not 1d

[dfgl1029]

@McJaews Technically, 1D is pure audio.

[jjovereats]

@McJaews 2D with lines only.

[Nintencrow]

@McJaews Fuck you. It's all about representation. A thin line can represent a single dimension. It's like how you draw smoke in 90's cartoons. It's not a realistic depiction of it, but it's a valid one. The best way of drawing a one-dimensional entity is a thin line.

[TheMilkMan252]

@Nintencrow 2d means 2 dimensions. When the line is moving up and down like that it has 2 dimensions. If it were like a number line, it'd be 1d.

[omlas6]

@McJaews Actually the first one WAS 1D cause the line had only length but not width, and were going straight in one dimension only, tell me if I am wrong

[akallstar5]

@McJaews we are all aware of this... in fact 2d is impossible to depict as well, even if you draw a line the thickness of lead or mark coming of the page gives it depth... representations are the best we have, if we simply called everything 3d people would get mad due to the fact that there is magnitudes of 3d.

[kylethehedgehog101]

@akallstar5 actually 2d is possible to depict...

[akallstar5]

@kylethehedgehog101 technically no... in a 3d realm EVERYTHING has depth as well as length and width. You can represent something that is 2d, much like you can make a model representation of 4D, but you can never actually achieve the 4th dimension, nor take away 1 dimension from 3d.

[kylethehedgehog101]

@akallstar5 Very analytically spoken. I'll choose to disagree, but good for you for you for having opinions.

[akallstar5]

@kylethehedgehog101 even light is 3d, it has two directions along oscillating magnetic and electric field vectors and one direction along the wave propagation, so shadows, photographs, TV/computer screens, all 3d.

[kylethehedgehog101]

@akallstar5 Dimensions are concepts. All dimensions exist at once, while different concepts are represented by these dimensions. For instance, comics are two dimensional. They may not be alive, but they exist within our reality and therefore are still relevant. Of course the newspapers these comics may exist on are 3 dimensional, the comics are still considered 2-dimensional; these dimensions are merely coinciding together. Quantum Mechanics, baby ;)

[Vyse220]

that's all 2D actually

[JonTwinSoul1]

a line has 1 dimension (width) = measured in units

a square has 2D (width * height) = measured in units squared

like half of you fail. the only one close to being 2D is man on wire. until its a closed polygon it can not have an area and therefore remains 1D regardless of how it looks because there is only one measurement for it...

[silvercruz1980]

@JonTwinSoul1 I agree with you 100%. Still, to me the one that feels like is not 1D is Star Wars. The way the sticks seem to move at a 360 degree angle, thus creating the sensation of depth and space in a flat surface. Still, it just might be my eyes.

[moneymaker8815]

More like 2-D. And suprisingly enough, if there where stick figures, then i would totally watch star wars, for real!

[zumpster]

2D... Funny tough XD

[RJ1541]

You fail...this is 2-D not 1-D

[CaptainJosha]

fail. it's 2-D. you can't draw 1-D.

[PznRen]

This is 2D!!! 1D is the first, the blue line.

[BrandurJustinussen]

@PznRen No it's not.

[HandyFridge]

@PznRen technically that line was 2d but a line could theoretically be 1d but would be impossible to see.

[someman7]

@PznRen and the dashed line, but yeah. this is 2d

[knazir]

twisted . nice. I agree all movies are becoming predictable and monotone.

[spicchio]

Funny! I like it

[DerSchnurrbart]

The studios should focus on 2X-D films instead.

[535Pimpdoubt]

yeah you guys dimension failed way hard, but it's ok... i still love ya.

[alexander324324]

dude thats 2 D

updown rigth left

[sonic17TH]

tahts not 1-D

the blue line was almost 1-D

[OohSoEpic]

Funny