I recently went to see the new Star Trek movie, and although it was a generally entertaining movie, one thing about it really bothered me: the coordinate system used. In the film, a key plot point is when Kirk is given a set of coordinates: (23, 17, 46, 11). Notice anything strange about those coordinates?
Here are my thoughts:
1. Why in the hell are there 4 numbers?
Space is, of course, three dimensional, and therefore it would make sense to map it using 3 coordinates. So what's up with that fourth number? What does it stand for? After much thought, I concluded that the fourth number could plausibly be the number of the "sector." Space being very large, it makes sense to break it up into sectors to make the mapping more manageable. I can accept this. But it brings me to my next point.
2. Why in the hell are the numbers so small?
What units are these numbers in? I'd imagine that the area (volume?) described by such a set of numbers would be enormous. I guess it could just be describing a point near the origin ((0, 0, 0, 11) or whatever). Seems unlikely.
Mapping space is hard. Things are moving all the time. Orbits and whatnot. I would think it would be best to set your reference points to relatively stationary objects such as stars, and not planets. And that the location of planets would be kept in some sort of guide that would list the coordinates of the planets at various times.
In the movie, by the way, the location ends up being a moon of Jupiter. Wouldn't it have been much simpler to just say that? "Why don't you see what's happening near Europa?"
KAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
