Live data from Hacker News

'Big Void' Identified in Khufu's Great Pyramid at Giza

bbc.co.uk

161–170 of 246 posts

Re: 'Big Void' Identified in Khufu's Great Pyramid at Giza

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...for some reason:" - they shouldn't be allowed to destroy such an important monument to satisfy their curiosity.

I was at the Vatican museum recently and was surprised to see most sculptures appeared to be permanently damaged for embedding a number label. (example: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hvqlG6iPcP8/UGzso1C3AcI/AAAAAAAAJF... ) I agree with you, let’s not be arrogant, like in the past, and destroy what we should save for future generations.

Future generations will really appreciate that plugged shaft!

Re: 'Big Void' Identified in Khufu's Great Pyramid at Giza

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...for some reason:" - they shouldn't be allowed to destroy such an important monument to satisfy their curiosity.

A) proper digging shouldn’t destroy the monument. B) removal of parts of the structure is how we know what’s in it at all. The same is true for any othe other monuments that are structures. We had to dig through the valley of the kings to find the tombs. If we don’t breech the obstruction, we won’t understand the thing.

It seems like this is itself a demonstration there are alternative techniques.

Re: 'Big Void' Identified in Khufu's Great Pyramid at Giza

#163

does that disprove Jean-Pierre Houdin's beautiful theory, that there is an inner construction passage? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lasCXujNPfs&list=PLf_5zbxiQ4...

It looks like it disproves it. The theory speculates on the presence of peremiter ascending pathways behind the exterior walls - if they do exist I’m guessing they would have shown in the scans.

Re: 'Big Void' Identified in Khufu's Great Pyramid at Giza

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it’s just that nobody has tried? I can’t imagine it’s as difficult as, say, Google Street View’s street number recognition. Unfortunately I don’t have any answers to your question. I’m a rather casual observer with an interest but little experience. I only recently got interested enough to buy some books in the topic (and Sumerian history/mythology in general). It seems that the best source of untranslated cu…

This looks like it fits the general description: https://cdli.ucla.edu/ It looks like they've got images of tablets from about 30 institutions, organized by time period. I've found a few with transliterations, but information seems fragmentary. There are also a fair number of entries without images.

Thanks

Re: 'Big Void' Identified in Khufu's Great Pyramid at Giza

#165
post #53

Does HN have any domain experts that can comment on how reliable this research is? I got super excited about the Queen Nefertiti / King Tut secret chamber theory a year or two back (which used similar methods, it seemed), and was really disappointed when it turned out to be all wrong...

Co-author here. This is not the same method at all and this is much more reliable. For King Tut, they used ground penetration radar, which is very hard to interpret. Here: (1) this is confirmed by 3 independent teams using 3 different detection technologies, (2) we used the same statistical criteria as for discoveries in particle physics (deviation 5 sigma from the model). In addition, we clearly see the new void on…

On a tangent, but as has been asked here, does this disprove Jean-Pierre Houdin theory?

Re: 'Big Void' Identified in Khufu's Great Pyramid at Giza

#166
post #58

This diagram shows a shaft going into this void from two sides. I was wondering why they don't send a robot down into those. Seems the answer is that they have, but there's something blocking the shaft and they're not willing to destroy it any further for some reason: http://guardians.net/hawass/articles/news_on_the_robot_Dec_2... http://www.crystalinks.com/gantenbrink.html http://www.gizapower.com/Articles/door2.htm…

Um, no. The diagram is 2D, pyramid is 3D; by losing one dimension, disjoint objects seem connected. Even in the image, shaft passes behind the void, not through it. (In other words, this is not a girl with a tree growing out of her head, either: https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/188/434949407_3271582421_z.jpg... )

How can you be so certain? The picture alone provides no clue. It would be unheard of for a tree to grow out of someone's head, but strictly speaking not categorically impossible. In fact, for the sake of argument the only reason you're able to make that statement at all is due to your previous experience. There's nothing at all in the picture that tells you she doesn't have a tree growing out of her head.

Re: 'Big Void' Identified in Khufu's Great Pyramid at Giza

#167
post #32
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like it's a safer option, but requires that you have the technology and energy sources to communicate with that satellite - which is not really 100% reliable if you are about to experience a planet-wide catastrophe of such magnitude that it would require storing data outside of the Earth surface in a first place.

You could put in an orbit that would have a predefined reentry in the future. Design the satellite to survive reentry and somehow safely land in a way that relies on a mechanical system that wouldn't degrade like electronics in space would.

You can't do this on a long term scale with something that's below geostationary orbit, because random solar flares and solar phenomena cause expansion and contraction of the earth's atmosphere at unpredictable times. If you have a satellite in an orbit that is low enough to gradually degrade through atmospheric drag (even if it's a very high-LEO orbit or molniya orbit that won't reenter for an estimated 300 years), the exact time that it will re-enter can't be predicted with any confidence. At least not if you are talking about a very long time scale. Short-term (3, 5 or 7 year time scale) orbit degradation of things in LEO is predictable based on orbital height and known atmospheric density at a given altitude, but beyond that any re-entry predictions become much more fuzzy.

for reference: https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.0233

If you want to put something in orbit that will stay in a predictable location, you don't want it to re-enter at all, you want to put it in an orbit that is high enough to not be affected by atmospheric drag on a geologic time scale. Something slightly beyond geostationary will still be there in 200,000 years.

Re: 'Big Void' Identified in Khufu's Great Pyramid at Giza

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...for some reason:" - they shouldn't be allowed to destroy such an important monument to satisfy their curiosity.

I was at the Vatican museum recently and was surprised to see most sculptures appeared to be permanently damaged for embedding a number label. (example: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hvqlG6iPcP8/UGzso1C3AcI/AAAAAAAAJF... ) I agree with you, let’s not be arrogant, like in the past, and destroy what we should save for future generations.

Is that part of the original sculpture? It looks like a modern pedestal constructed for it to me.

Re: 'Big Void' Identified in Khufu's Great Pyramid at Giza

#170
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never to be found again

Orbits decay, often at a plannable rate. Eventually it crashes back to earth and becomes an archeological relic for future explorers. I bet you could even design the sattelite to burn specatularly (in many colors) on the way down so it's more likely to be seen and sought after.

Orbits only really decay due to atmospheric drag. Other tiny bits of cosmic, rarified gas can slow the spacecraft on a long timescale, and solar radiation pressure can perturb an orbit (occasionally dramatically, if the Sun is unhappy), but the effect is far smaller than constant drag. If a small satellite is orbiting Earth at a high enough altitude which was calculated to consider the broader gravitational system (Earth's natural satellites, the Sun, and fainter perturbations from nearby celestial objects have to be factored in), orbit can be designed to be stable on a long, long timescale. Millions of years, or more.

The real fly in your plan's ointment would be exposure to space, which sucks a lot for electronics.

Post reply on HN