• fsxylo@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Pyramids are the easiest structure to build. You stack rocks. Want them to look nice, cut the rocks into bricks.

    • slumlordthanatos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      9 months ago

      And all you need is lots of money, lots of labor, and some clever engineers, which are all things the ancient Egyptians had in spades.

      It’s really not that hard.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Technically we can’t send people to the moon anymore but that’s not really relevant to whether or not we can build a pyramid because one of them requires special technology and the other requires a general purpose crane

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            We could send people to the moon, we haven’t lost the knowledge or resources needed. It’s just that it’s no longer a priority. It was incredibly expensive the first time. Although it would be less expensive the second time, this is a case where there’s absolutely no justification for not working from home (i.e. using robots).

            • decisivelyhoodnoises@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              we haven’t lost the knowledge or resources needed

              Yeah its not that simple. Knowledge is pretty much lost in terms that there is not any easy or practical way to reconstruct for example the computer that navigated the Apollo and assume that this will provide a flawless trip. This hardware is also outdated so it would had been dumb to attempt to reconstruct something so many decades old. Also the code that run there was coded for this specific hardware which makes it unsuitable for modern hardware. So yeah, the knowledge exists in archives but is not really usable as is

              • merc@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                9 months ago

                I don’t know why you’re talking about Apollo hardware and software. The programmers and engineers who wrote that stuff did it from well known scientific and engineering principles. They didn’t have to start with a previous moon mission. The scientific and engineering principles are even better known today, and we have much more experience for space flight.

                The only advantage you’d have with Apollo era stuff is that it has been tested and the bugs are well known. But, so what? Any modern mission to the moon would start from first principles again, not by trying to extend the Apollo stuff.

                • decisivelyhoodnoises@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Yes I know. My reply was towards explaining that the knowledge even though it exists, it still requires big human effort and its not something like “we’d copy what we already have and it will work”

              • rambaroo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                90% of this tech was rebuilt for the SLS/Orion and significantly improved on, and the next 10% involves the lunar lander and is coming within a couple years.

                It’s not only possible, it’s literally being done right now.

                • decisivelyhoodnoises@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Yes I know. My reply was towards explaining that the knowledge even though it exists, it still requires big human effort and its not something like “we’d copy what we already have and it will work”

    • selokichtli@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Even isolated mountains have frequently that shape. It’s not like some guy came up with this crazy idea and told their engineer-like peers “Hey, hear me out, I have this crazy idea, are you ready? It’s this never seen before structure, I call it the pyramid!”.

      • Cypher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        9 months ago

        impossible to measure accurately

        By some idiot hosting a conspiracy theorist website.

        Actual physicists find it quite easy.

        Distance of the Earth to the Moon? Easy as

        Until the late 1950s all measurements of lunar distance were based on optical angular measurements: the earliest accurate measurement was by Hipparchus in the 2nd century BC.

        Done with nothing the Egyptians didn’t have.

        Oh btw once you work out the distance you can easily calculate Earths diameter.

        Since you believe websites that look like the early 90’s shat them out I have some crypto to sell you, it was invented by the Lizard people in a joint venture with the Grey aliens.

        • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Not sure what you on about, i was just having a laugh. I picked a dodgy looking site on purpose so people wouldn’t get confused.

          My statement that ruins are impossible to measure accurately was a dig at the expense of such theories. As they seem to pull out decimal numbers based on a layer of stones that aren’t even there anymore.

          For the record i do believe that there are real historical cases of mathematical knowledge hidden in works of art, which is what i meant with you can believe what you want. The nutcase theories do not present any substance that should make anyone believe anything other then they already did. Its just fun to deepdive.

          • Cypher@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            If you intended sarcasm in your comment it missed the mark, it’s really difficult to discern with people who actually believe that garbage.

            Did people use, or even occasionally stumble upon, seemingly “complex” mathematics? Sure.

            Letting anyone make unverified claims about the origins or meaning, or even the methods is dangerous and shows a lack of critical thinking.

        • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Its pi’s leas famous cousin is how i understand it.

          It uses φ or ϕ as a symbol, you may know it as the golden ratio or as the fibonacci sequence

          Its found as a standard all over nature, so the mysticism basically writes itself.