Why aren't corridors in space-based films square ?
405684
they are trying to portray aliens as... they think they can ... uh... umm... I got nuthin'... sorry.
259241
Because there are no atmospheric particles for the light beams to bounce off of. You know how light bends(i.e. slows down) when traveling through water? Some light particles bounce off the water and others go through it. Its the same with the air. So that is why when you look at pictures of space you can actually see some things, because the light is bouncing off of them. The rest is void. Or mostly anyhow.
1032925
At this point, no one "owns" those spots.  Space is currently  governed by several UN treaties, although not all countries have signed the treaties.  The treaties list general ideas about usage, but specific laws regarding that usage are generally left up to the individual countires.\n\nTypically, law evolves where there's a need for it.  Since competition for locations in space or on the various solar system bodies (other than earth orbits) hasn't been a big issue, there's little law other than the treaties that govern what happens in space.  \n\nWhat's probably more important than any UN treaties today is the standard practice that space-going countries follow.  In this respect, it's more about a country's ability to physically enforce any particular activities.
601158
Wow. Science FICTION remember. Lucas has actually talked about that decision.  It was done for effect. Once he decided that there would be sound in the vacuum of space he had to keep the idea going for the sake of continuity. How good would the opening scene have been if we sat in the cinema with that huge space ship flying in overhead, laser canons firing explosions all around and no sound? Sound heightens the experience. So while he was aware that there is no sound in space, he decided in his universe, there would be.
617356
Something about beam misalignment\n\nhttp://www.reference.com/search?db=web&q=jogged%20beam
59483
If you seriously want an answer/guess here you go.\n\nHexagons have a certain rigidity and space efficiency that you don't get with squares, pentagons, or triangles.  Which is probably why bees evolved to make their honey comb out of hexagons.\n\nHexagons have 3 axes of rigidity that squares lack.  Create a grid of squares and it'll collapse easily by pushing on a corner.  Do the same with a hexagonal grid and it is much tougher to do.\n\nIf they used triangles, they'd be less space efficient for the "round" pupa that develop inside the cells.  You'd have extra bits of space at the edges and it be harder to get into those corners -- narrow acute 60 degree angles rather than oblique 120 degree angles which are more open.\n\nAnd I don't think you can make regular grids of only pentagons.  You'd have to incorporate other shapes which would make the whole comb generation problem that much harder for the bees.\n\nSo, hexagons it is.  Because they're easy to replicate over and over, they are highly space efficient, and they are highly rigid.  The same reasons that man uses them in skis and other products.
483445
This is not possible yet .. maybe in the future for spaces, but not right now.
855104
so that the manhole cover won't fall into the manhole. if it was square, then it could fall into the hole when placed diagonally. same goes for any other shape.
768008
Hi,\n\nFirst think about space as a big sheet of saran wrap. Then imagine that mass distorts the sheet, causing wells, or dents in it. now imagine that the photons need to travel along the saran wrap (i.e. traveling through space) and it makes sense that they would seem to change directions with respect to gravity. \n\nThat is a gross oversimplification, but I think that the analogy is roughly correct.\n\nHope that helps, \nMatt
414837
The idea is to build up the corners, you want to get a 2x2x2 corner lined up and then work from there.\n\nHere's a very helpful link\nhttp://lar5.com/cube/
882142
They exist, they are just not practical for visualizing 3D geometry.\n\nMost people have trouble with 1st and 3rd angle (2nd and 4th would be front and back "views" given a "side" projection).
137083
usually rectangular-4 0f each suite
886083
You need to tell more about what these squares look like
477884
Assuming this is for wall-to-wall carpeting, it is easy if it is a rectangle, harder if there is a bay window (arc of a circle) or an alcove or other feature added on.\n\nOf course, just to be awkward, some buildings are circular, hexagonal, octagonal etc. And some rooms are split-level, so you need to carpet the vertical bits of the stairs as well as the horizontal bits!
459271
Not all tvs are.  Ours is rectangular.  TVs come square and rectangular.  Why aren't there other shapes?  If there is a reason, I sure couldn't find one.
625876
It will takes less space due the thickness of your wall.\nThickness of you square will require more space to be transportated or if it's small, will not be enough to fit into a wall. \n\nRetangular shape are usefull, by the flexibility to build something - you can adjust it using a lot of possibilities. Square means all areas within the same measure. If you talk about retangular looking like square, it fits, you can find bricks with this shape. \n\nWhat is brilliant about your question is: Is it possible to have other shapes? Yes! And why its worldwide using retangular shape? Because its easier to build retangular than squares! ... and why its easier? \n\nGet some plastic material and try to build a wall using Square models and Retangular models, you will find it why. Get some mud and try to build your own brick.
210625
Because the radius line has no width.