h a l f b a k e r yAlas, poor spelling!
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
The pyramdids are an impressive sight, but 6000 years have past. We have much much better technology today. Surely we can make something even more impressive.
Using mobile weights, giant gyros, and other mechanical contriviances, we can built a giant inverted pyramid.
Made of tough yet light material,
it resist corrosion, and won't tip over, unless power is removed. Even then, large banks of batteries buried in the ground beneath continue to power it for a while. Power is drawn in through the point touching the ground.
Spinning slowly, balancing on it's nose, if properly taken care of, this Giant Inverted Pyramid would last, and hopefully awe our descendants for millenia.
Louvre
http://www.diff.net...re_pyramid.orig.jpg
Ok, not quite what you were looking for. [Worldgineer, May 12 2005]
Gyro Achitecture
Gyro_20Achitecture
similar [xaviergisz, May 12 2005]
The Timecube Theory
HTTP://www.timecube.com
WARNING: THIS IS FORBIDDEN KNOWLEDGE! [wagster, May 13 2005]
Harvard Magazine Article on Pyramid Construction
http://www.harvard-...on-line/070391.html
[DrBob, Nov 08 2006]
[link]
|
| |
//Made of tough yet light material, it resist corrosion, and won't tip over, unless power is removed.// |
|
| |
Nah, that's a huge liability. I just see all the tech dependence as messy, far from the ideals behind the perfect forms that the pyramids were meant to glorify. |
|
| |
Now, if this inverted pyramid was completely self sufficient, a beackon to the new age of fully autonomous technology, then that would be something. |
|
| |
Or, if we just built a pyramid out of nanotubes that extended into space, that would be something,too. |
|
| |
Not that your Giant Pyramid wouldn't be something, it just wouldn't communicate form like I think it should. It would be big and cool, but nothing benchmark. |
|
| |
How about a building that *looks* like a giant inverted pyramid, but that actually has an invisible force field sphere circumscribed around it so it is in fact spherical. THAT ought to impress those snobs from the 60th century. |
|
| |
A pyramid size and shaped hole in the ground surfaced with stone would be impressive. |
|
| |
was it you, DF who suggested this some weeks back? |
|
| |
The technology would ruin it but I'm bunning the idea of building an inverted pyramid, preferably in Giza. The point would have to be mighty strong though and the foundation massive. |
|
| |
I asked on the last mummification of this idea, how deep it would have to be in the sand so that it did not tip over. |
|
| |
oh, please don't confuse me with maths... |
|
| |
Build it around a 10m diameter steel pole that's set in concrete foundations even more massive than the pyramid. Then it can practically all be exposed. |
|
| |
Anyone got a few hundred thousand slaves they could lend me? |
|
| |
I gotta few hundred thousand Roombas! |
|
| |
Okay, I don't, but if I did... |
|
| |
union square = two inverted pyramids
and by inverted i mean upside down
and by two i mean a cube. |
|
| |
But, then one is right side up, right? |
|
| |
The government will not reveal the Timecube discovery to the public. It is forbidden knowledge. |
|
| |
THE government. Good job [wagster]
revealing two secrets at once. sheesh. |
|
| |
[jscottpete], the pyramids were not made by slaves but by paid workers. It was huge industry, run in a very modern way. There were no whips or brutality involved. |
|
| |
And this is a great idea! |
|
| |
Consider the following- An inverted pyramid structure that has a bank of elevators at the base. The only way to enter the building is by getting on the elevator and ascending to the level that you are going to. The executives at the higher floors get bigger office spaces with a really spectacular view while the subordinate workers have to be stuffed in the smaller spaces below. |
|
| |
Thanks for pulling this one up, JScotty. An interesting concept. I think a modern pyramid should meet these requirements:
- be able to withstand the ages
- convey our advanced understanding of the universe
- be of a beautiful simplicity
- visible from afar. |
|
| |
I wonder if we are capable today of making pyramids superior to the ancient ones. Perhaps just bigger ones, made with machines. Without the religious motivation, it probably would be a waste of money. |
|
| |
//I wonder if we are capable today of making pyramids superior to the ancient ones.// |
|
| |
Most would think that this would be the case, however, with all of our modern tools, equipment and ingenuity, we are still discovering that the egyptians knew many things that we still don't. Scientists are still unsure how they were able to build the pyramids with such precision and without the use of adhesives to hold the blocks together. I vaguely remember a story on the news about the replica of a pyramid at the MGM Grand hotel in Vegas collapsing during construction. |
|
| |
//When in awe of the pyramids don't we all think of the slave aspect, the suffering and the waste of manpower?//
Just to echo zeno's anno. The pyramids weren't built by slaves but by, what we could call, a professional class of construction workers. See link. |
|
| |
\./ I favor building an inverted pyramid with robotic labor. |
|
| |
I thought I'd mentioned this before, but anyway. I once
told a friend, as a joke, that the pyramids had been built
upside down because the person who built them
accidentally held the papyrus the wrong way up, and I
assumed my friend realised I wasn't serious. A couple of
years later she was doing an archaeology degree and
came up to me and said, "you know that thing you said
about the pyramids being built upside down by mistake?
That wasn't true was it?" |
|
| |
I'd've loved to have been a fly on the wall in that
particular tutorial. |
|
| |
// I'd've loved to have been a fly on the wall in that particular tutorial.// |
|
| |
Your friend is doing schoolwork. She is scrolling through a paper about the building of the pyramids. She assumes a puzzled expression, then barks a laugh. She then resumes scrolling. |
|
| |
On closer scrutiny, the title of the idea - "Giant Inverted Pyramid" - is not merely ambiguous, but blatantly inappropriate. |
|
| |
"Giant Inverted Pyramid" in its most literal interpretation means "A pyramid (size unspecified) which has been inverted by a giant (presumably human)" |
|
| |
Therefore, that would mean "A pyramid of any size, which has been turned on its point by a human of very much above-average size". |
|
| |
To describe the idea correctly, the title should actually be "Inverted Giant Pyramid". This would clearly mean "A very large pyramid, much larger than a typical pyramid, in an upside-down (base uppermost) orientation, irrespective of the size of the person or persons carrying out the process of inversion" |
|
| |
<pedant ++>"Giant Inverted Pyramid".. An inverted pyramid (of no specified size), for a giant who might enjoy collecting inverted pyramids which, relative to him/her/other, might seem like bonsai pyramids..
</pedant ++> |
|
| |
We think that you are in error in employing that arithmetic operator. |
|
| |
You are trying to claim that you are aspiring to a higher level of pedantry; and yet the postfix operator means that the level of pedantry is unchanged when the function is evaluated, and its value is not increased until after the task employing the value "pedant" had been executed, only subsequent to which the level of pedantry is increased - which means that the level of pedantry is the same as in the previous annotation. |
|
| |
This is a bit sad, really; like being "volunteered" to help with a community organization's litter-picking campaign - it's tedious, it's done out of a vague feeling of duty rather than real enthusiasm, and there's no sense of achieving anything really useul. |
|
| |