RE: Ancient Astronaut Theory
February 3, 2011 at 6:26 pm
(This post was last modified: February 3, 2011 at 6:31 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(February 3, 2011 at 5:24 pm)Minimalist Wrote: As someone once noted, "moving 100 one-ton stones is child's play compared to moving one, 100-ton stone."
There is likely a inflection point above which scaling existing technologies without fundamental changes would not be feasible. But what is the reason to place that point at between the block sizes in the red pyramid and those in the pyramid of Korfu?
(February 3, 2011 at 5:24 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The technological problems are significant. Besides, why would the knowledge disappear? You can build a smaller structure but why build it like shit?
Because you no longer think it worthwhile to invest in extravagant quality surpassing what is needed to serve immediate needs as you choose to redeploy resources away from a previous focus of fixation. Look at how much shabbier might the quality of underlying construction of the typical modern wood frame and drywall suburban home appear when compare to the brick and masonry houses that might be built in 1920s. Also look at the extravagant quality of construction found in the main part of the palace at Versaille built in the 1660s and compare to the shabby painted papier mache decorations on the opera house added to Versaille in the 1750s
