It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why can't we build things as good as the ancients?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
A question that has been plaguing me for a while now:

Why can't or don't we build our monuments as good as the ancients??

for example our cathedrals are nothing in comparison to the cathedrals built during the middle ages...

Yorkminster Cathedral:




and then to our modern Cathedral (sorry Portsmouth):





In my opinion we can't build things to the quality of our ancestors. But i don't know why




posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I think that we can build great buildings when there is a need, manpower and most importantly - money. How long it took to build Yorkminster Cathedral and how long Portsmouth?
And the costs were much lower.
Just look at Chrysler building. And there are a lot of others aesthetically pleasent and good quality buildings, just that they cost a lot.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   
In comparative terms, you are probably correct about cost being an important issue.

I am just dumbfounded as to why we are not leaving a legacy in case of an extinction level event / catastrophy. All we have accomplished would only take a couple of hundred years to degrade....

In a thousand years the only evidence of an advanced civilisation would be the ancient monuments that have survived...



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I agree with you that we go for efficiency and not greatness, but actually i see no problem with that. I would rather to have three hospitals then one that would stand for thousand years. Sorry, future generations. But pictures and data will remain anyway. Past generations could not leave a DVD disk with 3d pictures of all major structures, we can.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I would imagine if the ancients had access to glass and steel in the quality and quantity we have nowadays then their buildings wouldn't have lasted quite as long as they have.

We live in a consumer society. It is not in the interests of the suppliers of this society to have lasting items. Just take clothes for example a hundred years ago a gentleman on reaching manhood would go to his tailor and have suits of clothes made for different functions. These were all made in such a way that they could be altered as the owners body changed over the years.
It was very similar for women as well. Of course underwear, socks etc were not meant to last quite that long but certainly much longer than our throw away society of today. This was a time when at least for certain classes quality ruled and of course this spiralled downwards to the lower orders as well.

Witness how many TV shows dealing with quality antiqueties from this period are at present available. Of course our society will also leave antiques just not as many as before I would guess.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
NO! It's because we are DEE DEE DEE!
Seriously, some things are just this simple.


www.youtube.com...




[edit on 21-6-2008 by bismarcksea]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Money has this tendency to make our world look ugly... or rather to make our creations look less impressive. If we were more concerned with aesthetics and art, we would spend more time and effort into making things look good and last longer. But because of this constant issue of money, it's rare that we get a chance to utilize our creativity to it's fullest potential.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Nerevar...

I just wanted to add a theory here that might be part of what you're picking up on. I trained as an architect, (HA! And you all thought I was just a faery!!) and I believe, having experienced that training that architects and builders now are wrapped in technology and the minute mechanics of modern buildings and the materials that they are much more removed from the energy of place, and the sensual, earthy nature of what is surrounding them. I do agree that it might be a little difficult in central London, for instance, but there seems to be a huge, egocentric, masculine drive to produce the most high tech, the most complex structure, which filters down to every level of architecture, and they forget, or disregard what they are feeling, partly in favour of what they are thinking or knowing.
I love the example of cathedrals...just looking at cathedral floorplans is magical to me, and a visit to one of the major cathedral sites is a treat. So far, my favourite is Lincoln, and those guys really knew how to build for power...there are huge lines of energy running in all directions there, and the whole structure sings...literally sometimes, as they were designed in part to amplify the sacred music performed there, I believe.
In my book, and this is a very personal view, the most powerful buildings are the least technologically advanced...maybe it has something to do with emfs, or even plumbing!...but I suspect that lack of technology shifts the emphasis onto more sensual, intuitive and spiritual construction...if that makes sense.

Caitlin

[edit on 21-6-2008 by caitlinfae]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Not to be a realist here, but I would think that one of the major factors of older / ancient / structures still lasting is the simple fact that there are groups of people and societies who raise money to... what's the word... preserve those same structures and monuments.

The other major factor would be the material used. Long after our major cities have collapsed and corroded away, Mount Rushmore will still remain, a symbol to those in the future that we worshiped those four beings as dieties.

Third, you must consider the purpose of the building. Are you creating a monument to the gods, something that those gods can look down upon in ever lasting pride? Or are you making a skyscraper?

Lastly, as any realtor will tell you, it's all about location location location. Any strucutre built upon an unstable zone would have collapsed, lost to memory, while those built on a more solid foundation will last the ages.

There is no mystical forces at work, no divine intervention or alien construction. It's all about good planning, making a message to be seen by all, for all times, and where it was built.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
I suspect it may also be due in part to the fact that they probably didn't give the job to the lowest bidder.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
When you come down to it, a lot goes into how long the building is supposed to stay standing. Buildings used to have to be around for as long as possible. Many building today aren't expected to be around for another fifty years or so. A good deal of them get torn down and replaced with newer buildings before then.
Tied to that are the matierials. We use sheetrock, concrete, glass, and many other easily busted or corroded materials in buildings. The ancients used rocks and trees, wth some pieces of metal. The Greeks and Romans had a fairly unique blend of concrete that did a remarkable job. They also added art to their structures as a matter of course.
Could we do the same today? Sure. We won't though. Partially because everyone needs to be paid. ANd unlike areas where despots or tyrants are in control, we can't say, look, build this here and now or i'll kill you. People complain.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nerevar
In my opinion we can't build things to the quality of our ancestors. But i don't know why

You'd have to define "quality".

Did any of our ancestors build an 800m tall building?




Seriously, ancient architecture is nothing compared to modern architecture. The very idea of this question being raised is an insult to engineers. Well, maybe flattering to ancients, but still an insult to us.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   
It's not so much that we can't, it's more of a question of why should we? Large, lavishly adorned structures cost big money. Why waste money when you can create something much more efficient for a lower cost?



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by zephyrs
It's not so much that we can't, it's more of a question of why should we? Large, lavishly adorned structures cost big money. Why waste money when you can create something much more efficient for a lower cost?


this guy has nailed it on the head . . . think about the Egyptians . . . when the pharaohs instructed their people to construct the pyramids. The endeavor required unimaginable manpower, resources, and time. Not to mention the fact it strained the Egyptian economy.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Something like 10 of the world’s top engineers were asked if they could replicate the great pyramid of Egypt. Neither of them said they could. Not because of expense or efficiency. There are no modern day technologies to reproduce that level of precision on that grand of a scale, “No Joke”. There are also many sound and energy abnormalities that plague the great pyramid that over the decades have been found to be a deliberate design. One example is the granite stone the builders used is full of quartz crystal. When pressure is applied to these stones, “the shear weight of the pyramid”, a vibrational frequency is created. This frequency matches that of the earths. I believe it is said to be F#. Our modern day engineers are not incompendent, they just lack an understanding of reality the ancients had.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthbear13
Something like 10 of the world’s top engineers were asked if they could replicate the great pyramid of Egypt. Neither of them said they could. Not because of expense or efficiency. There are no modern day technologies to reproduce that level of precision on that grand of a scale, “No Joke”.

That is a joke until you can provide some proof these 10 engineers said it. The pyramid is such a simple building you dont even need to be "engineer" to do it: you just have to be very, very skilled at stacking big blocks of stone.

The pyramids are very different than what we build now, true... But that goes both ways. I'd like to see ancient Egyptians try to build a 30km long suspension bridge, hahaha! Grand scale? The pyramids are so small in comparison they look like childrens toys.

And we havent even scratched the surface of what we could do if we put effort into it, unlike the Egyptians which where probably "maxed out" by the design of the Great Pyramid (they could only build larger, basicly).



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Finger Prints of the Gods by Graham Hancock and The Atlantis Blueprint by Colin Wilson provide reports on engineer’s assessment on the construction of the great pyramid. Also look up Christopher P. Dunn a British toolmaker and engineer. Dunn has organized many research projects with other engineers. From stone cutters to crane operators. I believe that should be enough to go on, if not you are really not that interested on this subject.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Earthbear...I love that information about the vibrational frequency of the pyramid...that's really what I meant about buildings singing, resonating. I wonder if it works for the cathedrals. Has anyone ever tested them?

And Merka...the image you chose to illustrate your theory kinda proves my point....*wink!*


Caitlin



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthbear13
Finger Prints of the Gods by Graham Hancock and The Atlantis Blueprint by Colin Wilson provide reports on engineer’s assessment on the construction of the great pyramid. Also look up Christopher P. Dunn a British toolmaker and engineer. Dunn has organized many research projects with other engineers. From stone cutters to crane operators. I believe that should be enough to go on, if not you are really not that interested on this subject.

I am sure someone more accustomed to Hancock or this Wilson guy can provide insight into this, unfortunetly I cant: havent read either book. And even if I had, its obvious that it would be biased opinions: Hancock would only include reports that suits his purpose.

caitlinfae, I did not present a theory. I've only stated the obvious here. Some people seems to be completely oblivious to modern engineering when they start ranting about how magical and wondrous the Great Pyramid is. Its simple beauty is stunning, but its still just a big pyramid. In fact, I just saw something on Discovery the other day that made me think on it. It was a show on a cargo container vessel. They displayed the engine and the beast shocked me: At 5 stories high it dwarfed a man. But when you looked closer... It was a general combustion engine. Sure the pistons where the size of a bus, but still it was an engine just like the one in my car. If only my car had 93,000 hp



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Tut tut Merka...such masculine obsessions...tall, pointy buildings and horsepower...not much has changed since I was a fledgling architect...*sigh*



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join