5 ms·

No. part of it is that its hard for many to believe that civilization can regress for very long periods of time. They were the tallest man-made structures for

No. part of it is that its hard for many to believe that civilization can regress for very long periods of time. They were the tallest man-made structures for 3800 years. The engineering and quality of construction was mostly unmatched throughout that duration. Another issue is that 'scientists' refused to acknowledge that Egypt and most of Northern Africa was lush and green for some time. The people claimed the gods pulled the sun accross the sky and changed the climate. 'scientits' were like "wow you are so stupid, it doesnt work like that, it was never green and you killed what ever green there was by over farming". Turns out, it was a change in Earths tilt. going along with that theme, we tend to ignore what we are told. The egyptians left depictions of how they did it, by rolling the blocks on large logs and throwing water in front of them, and they left notebooks describing how they sourced the blocks and shiped them down the nile on the river. turns out, after 4000 years, we still don't read the f'ing documentation.

alephnerd 2y ago
Read about the person who created the hypothesis GP mentioned (Schwaller de Lubicz). I'm not disputing the climate change part, I'm disputing the Atlantis part
mcphage 2y ago
> The engineering and quality of construction was mostly unmatched throughout that duration. That's definitely not true. They didn't build pyramids of that size after the Old Kingdom, but they definitely had impressive engineering and crafts. The largest computer ever built was finished in 1963—why don't we build computers that large anymore? Because "largest computer" isn't a useful metric.
- autokad 2y ago
  The grandeur of the Great Pyramids is widely acknowledged as the pinnacle of pyramid construction (pun intended). Despite their impressiveness, other pyramids fell short in comparison (also pun intended). Your argument suffers from flawed logic by attempting to directly equate the construction of a physical structure with that of a computer. Moreover, the greatness of the Great Pyramids of Giza cannot be solely attributed to their size; they possess other notable aspects as well.
  - mcphage 2y ago
    > they possess other notable aspects as well. Sure, but what other notable aspects are superior to later dynasties, however?
ch4s3 2y ago
"People" didn't lost the ability to build giant megalithic structures and indeed pyramid construction flourished in the Americas until about 600 years ago. The Egyptians stopped building pyramids because it took decades, was insanely expensive, and gave grave robbers an obvious target. From an engineering perspective, ancient people built more complicated things than the pyramids, just not as tall. Why should height be the sole measure of engineering prowess? Consider the coffered dome of the Roman Pantheon.
- DiggyJohnson 2y ago
  For what it’s worth, it’s the height and volume of the pyramids that impresses me. A skinny skyscraper twice as tall but 1/64th the surface area Obviously we could build bigger if we wanted. I literally work in one of the biggest buildings in the US by volume and it is impressive on a daily basis. But just because I know we are capable of more doesn’t mean the accomplishment of actually doing the world and constructing the pyramids isn’t amazing. Besides the pantheon, what other ancient or modern projects measure up?
  - AlotOfReading 2y ago
    Feel free to look at the outline comparison on Wikipedia: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Comparison_of_pyramids_SMIL.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Comparis... The pyramid of Cholula (larger by volume), the Luxor hotel (smaller, but substantially more useful), and Ryugyong hotel (hobbled by the country building it) are all plausibly comparable projects.
  - masklinn 2y ago
    > For what it’s worth, it’s the height and volume of the pyramids that impresses me. A skinny skyscraper twice as tall but 1/64th the surface area Why are you impressed by unusable volume? Do spoil tips awe you?
    - DiggyJohnson 2y ago
      Sorry I didn’t finish that sentence somehow. But yes to your first question.

alephnerd 2y ago

Read about the person who created the hypothesis GP mentioned (Schwaller de Lubicz). I'm not disputing the climate change part, I'm disputing the Atlantis part

mcphage 2y ago

> The engineering and quality of construction was mostly unmatched throughout that duration. That's definitely not true. They didn't build pyramids of that size after the Old Kingdom, but they definitely had impressive engineering and crafts. The largest computer ever built was finished in 1963—why don't we build computers that large anymore? Because "largest computer" isn't a useful metric.

autokad 2y ago
The grandeur of the Great Pyramids is widely acknowledged as the pinnacle of pyramid construction (pun intended). Despite their impressiveness, other pyramids fell short in comparison (also pun intended). Your argument suffers from flawed logic by attempting to directly equate the construction of a physical structure with that of a computer. Moreover, the greatness of the Great Pyramids of Giza cannot be solely attributed to their size; they possess other notable aspects as well.
- mcphage 2y ago
  > they possess other notable aspects as well. Sure, but what other notable aspects are superior to later dynasties, however?

ch4s3 2y ago

"People" didn't lost the ability to build giant megalithic structures and indeed pyramid construction flourished in the Americas until about 600 years ago. The Egyptians stopped building pyramids because it took decades, was insanely expensive, and gave grave robbers an obvious target. From an engineering perspective, ancient people built more complicated things than the pyramids, just not as tall. Why should height be the sole measure of engineering prowess? Consider the coffered dome of the Roman Pantheon.

DiggyJohnson 2y ago
For what it’s worth, it’s the height and volume of the pyramids that impresses me. A skinny skyscraper twice as tall but 1/64th the surface area Obviously we could build bigger if we wanted. I literally work in one of the biggest buildings in the US by volume and it is impressive on a daily basis. But just because I know we are capable of more doesn’t mean the accomplishment of actually doing the world and constructing the pyramids isn’t amazing. Besides the pantheon, what other ancient or modern projects measure up?
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  Feel free to look at the outline comparison on Wikipedia: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Comparison_of_pyramids_SMIL.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Comparis... The pyramid of Cholula (larger by volume), the Luxor hotel (smaller, but substantially more useful), and Ryugyong hotel (hobbled by the country building it) are all plausibly comparable projects.
- masklinn 2y ago
  > For what it’s worth, it’s the height and volume of the pyramids that impresses me. A skinny skyscraper twice as tall but 1/64th the surface area Why are you impressed by unusable volume? Do spoil tips awe you?
  - DiggyJohnson 2y ago
    Sorry I didn’t finish that sentence somehow. But yes to your first question.