this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
942 points (97.3% liked)
Greentext
6260 readers
1423 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Pyramids are the easiest structure to build. You stack rocks. Want them to look nice, cut the rocks into bricks.
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.
Well, it's very hard, it's just not impossible.
Well, yeah, which is why building them took decades.
You don't really even need clever engineers unless you want some kind of internal structure (which the Egyptians did). Otherwise it's just a stack of rocks.
Same place he gets his COVID takes.
It's like the guy hasn't learned about cranes and construction site elevators
It's like sending people to the moon. Can we do it? Yes. Do we have a reason to? No.
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
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).
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 This hardware is also outdated so it would had been dumb to attempt to reconstruct something so many decades old.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
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.
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"
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.
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"
The SLS + Orion is capable of it
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!".
Instruction unclear accidentally calculated the number phi and the diameter of the earth and moon in relation to Eachother.
https://www.sacred-geometry.es/?q=en/content/phi-great-pyramid
Believe what you will, ancient ruines are impossible to measure accurately. Its an interesting rabbithole just how far the numbers stretch though.
By some idiot hosting a conspiracy theorist website.
Actual physicists find it quite easy.
Distance of the Earth to the Moon? Easy as
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.
Also London selling its bridge again
We're throwing in the Brooklyn Bridge while we're at it. What a deal!
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.
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.
The hell is phi?
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.