How is building a pyramid

[sushi]

in ancient egypt different from building a skyscraper or a tall modern structure?

today, people make construction and engineering seem like rocket science, the mathematics involved and calculations.

 

[Cognisant]

Well it was all just stacking rocks until someone invented cement but being set in our ways we just used this to stack rocks in more complex ways (brickwork). That is until the industrial revolution made vast quantities of reasonably high quality iron available, then structures of iron and glass were a fad for a while.

Concrete glass and steel are the current fashion but I think it's only a matter of time until something new steals the show, maybe 3D printed ceramic, maybe sophisticated carbon composites, or maybe we'll give up on this building thing altogether and start growing structures instead.

Maybe out of wood, maybe out of flesh and bone, who knows?

 

[sushi]

isnt the law of construction the same no matter what you build

building upwards and such

calculations like calculus and physics is involved in construction science

you are not building the space elevator.

 

[birdsnestfern]

Yes, pyramids may be created using Frequencies, Sound, Geometry, Antigravity methods, other rhelms, not just eqypt, all over and stone circles too: https://www.gaia.com/lp/sound-of-creation

 

[Hadoblado]

You've phrased the question sort of awkwardly. What observation makes you think that others think of them as different?

Current engineering uses more maths because it's reliable and because we have a lot of programs that make it easier. You can run simulations to see whether a structure is stable, or how much weight a bridge can hold - without investing millions first. This is very useful. We are much better at construction now than we were when the pyramids were built.

Those who built the pyramids did use maths, but they did not have access to the wealth of knowledge we do. We understand a lot about the mechanical properties of different materials. They did not. Basically, we have the inputs that they didn't.

 

[Rook]

the higher you go the more load is born by the base---thus why the pyramids work in their form, but to build a hollow cube of the same size with rock---u gonna need a bit more ingenuity and math and pillars and crossbars. and the pyramids we see are the big, well-constructed ones---the first attempts, only small zigurrats truly, are mostly lost to the sands, and then you got other wonky attempts that look more like stone turnips than anything else. what you see on the postcards are the apotheosis of centuries of architectural experimentation. they had the labor, they did it.

today the higher you go the more you gonna wanna factor in things like seismic activity and wind. the steel has to have a certain tensile strength etc. etc. then add a plethora of other utilities that are needed before the building is considered 'safe and habitable' by the local council or whatever, depending on building type and location: plumbing, elevators, wiring, gas, walls, doors and windows---the amount of specialist labor needed for all these amenities is surely more complex than that of the pyramids, which basically had the following production line: quarry>boat> site>ramps.

now we ain't even talkin' bout tiling, swimming pools, furnishing, and a plethora of other such---all of this has to be calculated and approxiamated beforehand by the architects and engineers to make a stable structure depending on local laws.

 

[Hadoblado]

I was talking to an engineer yesterday and they happened to mention a big push in their testing is towards how to build large structures using wood as a base. The reasoning is that wood acts as a carbon sink, so by expanding the applicability of wood construction we can address climate change goals.

 

[Rook]

yeah they just better fire-proof that shite. would be a cool aesthetic tho, these big-ass buildings glinting in their whorly gnarly brilliance like lost gods of root and leaf risen once more from the loam