Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Loading tagline ....

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Giant Inverted Pyramid

Surely we can do better that the Egyptians did 6000 years ago....
  (+9, -5)
(+9, -5)
  [vote for,

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.

DesertFox, May 12 2005

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

Harvard Magazine Article on Pyramid Construction http://www.harvard-...on-line/070391.html
[DrBob, Nov 08 2006]


       //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.
daseva, May 12 2005

       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.
phundug, May 12 2005

       A pyramid size and shaped hole in the ground surfaced with stone would be impressive.
FarmerJohn, May 12 2005

       was it you, DF who suggested this some weeks back?
po, May 12 2005

       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.
wagster, May 12 2005

       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.
po, May 12 2005

       oh, please don't confuse me with maths...
po, May 12 2005

       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?
wagster, May 12 2005

       I gotta few hundred thousand Roombas!   

       Okay, I don't, but if I did...
daseva, May 12 2005

       union square = two inverted pyramids and by inverted i mean upside down and by two i mean a cube.
SpocksEyebrow, May 12 2005

       But, then one is right side up, right?
daseva, May 12 2005

       The government will not reveal the Timecube discovery to the public. It is forbidden knowledge.
wagster, May 12 2005

       THE government. Good job [wagster] revealing two secrets at once. sheesh.
SpocksEyebrow, May 12 2005

       [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.
zeno, May 15 2005

       And this is a great idea!
zeno, May 15 2005

       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.
Jscotty, Nov 08 2006

       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.
jmvw, Nov 08 2006

       //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.
Jscotty, Nov 08 2006

       //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.
DrBob, Nov 08 2006

       \./ I favor building an inverted pyramid with robotic labor.
beanangel, Dec 23 2017

       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.
nineteenthly, Dec 24 2017

       // 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.
Voice, Dec 24 2017

       <gratuitous pedantry>   

       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"   

       </gratuitous pedantry>
8th of 7, Dec 24 2017

       <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 ++>
not_morrison_rm, Dec 24 2017

       // pedant ++ //   

       Postfix notation ?   

       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.
8th of 7, Dec 24 2017


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle