-Pyramids close to the equator

-Pyramids close to the equator
-Stonehenge and other circular temples up North

Can we draw some connections or it's not worth discussing?

Other urls found in this thread:



Pyramids: literally the easiest architecture.
Stonehenge: most likely unrelated.

hey guys. whats going on in this thread ?

>easiest architecture


Yeah, the earth is actually a tetrahedron., but they don't want you to know that.
The flatearthers are obvious false-flaggers

>similar, easy to construct buildings are found in the places it's easiest to live
what a surprise

I bet OP watched that one vid where people draw a line across sights like the pyramids or maya temples.

Archeology, while cool, is not science. Try

it's related to science so its ok

Aztecs and Egyptians the sun and thus wanted to build as high as possible. Pyramids are the most primitive way of building high.

In northern regions they much rather noticed the cyclical movements and needed to mark when the days become longer or when they become shorter. Thus the cylindrical structures that would indicate various sun positions

It's pretty simple actually

*worshipped the sun

Wouldn't the seasonal effects on things like shadows be more pronounced in the north and south and the importance of seasons generally more important there, making calendars more important to have?

As I said

Yeah they were all made by the same species of ancient beings.

Human beings.

>Can we draw some connections or it's not worth discussing?

People traveled way more than we give them credit for in the ancient world.

This is why I talk in my UFO threads about why it's stupid to automatically dismiss something just because it's not mainstream. There is actually a reason for OP's observations, between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn the sun appears directly overhead so cultures were compelled to build things that got close to their god the Sun. As said the easiest way to do this with the technology at the time was to build a pyramid. As he says also because in Northern regions due to the tilting of the Earth things became more cyclical so their structures took the form of circles.

So yes it was a good observation by OP, yes it was science related and if you are going to laugh at something for being "un-scientific" for no fucking reason other than you don't believe then go fuck off to somewhere more faith-based like a Mosque.


>In northern regions
So why nothing similar at southern hemisphere, at same distance from equator?

>why haven't abbos built anything?

Because there's almost no land there.

Or people in South America. Or South Africa. The latter informs us that is where the cradle of humanity was.

At least there ised to be a plausible looking theory why ancient civilizations were at roughly the same latitudes. Too bad it is now discredited (nazi propaganda supposedly, though I don't quite understand it) and no new theory has taken its place.

>yes it was science related
"Science" isn't a stylistic choice, a political orientation or a mantle you can drape over anything that makes sense to you.
It's a multi-step process that involves rigorous, repeatable testing of phenomena in an effort to test and revise explanations of how he world works.
And no, there's nothing scientific about your claims.

The central issue is that geography is extremely complex, and we're fairly confident that geography has a big impact on civilization. Aside from the huge impact that the shape of the landforms has on climate, predicting biodiversity and distribution of natural resources is a huge clusterfuck.
If you've ever played the game Civilization, imagine taking a finished map and trying to reconstruct how it all played out and why.

Welcome to /sci. Have you seen the university major pissing contests yet?

>The central issue is that geography is extremely complex,
Well, that doesn't tell me much, especially as the old theory was shot down.

>and we're fairly confident that geography has a big impact on civilization.
Except from the big obvious like there has to be water and probably some arable land, what else do current thinking say about this? Genuinely interested here.

My god !
I have discovered the architectural shape to build giant constructions without mortar !
I am a genious !

>it's not worth discussing


Arable land is pretty useless without food crops to grow in it. How efficient are those crops? How much manpower does it take to produce one calorie? How long did it take to domesticate that plant? How much can be grown per acre? How likely is the harvest to fail? How long can the food be stored? How easy are the seeds to transplant to new territory? How much does the food weigh per calorie? Can you feed a city with it? Can you feed an army with it?

The reason I wrote "some arable land" back up there is that some ancient cities like Catal Huyuk relied more on trade than having a large agricultural system surrounding the city. Similarly some South American empires had huge systems all over their land to feed their capital. Rome too was too big to be self sufficient.

Some Mesopotamian city states however were smaller and could rely more on surrounding arable land.

ayylien detected on aisle 4

Because more than two thirds of the landmass are in the north and that's also where the probability of high civilizations emerging was higher?

I have thought about that. However there were many civilizations in the north like Mesopotamia (actually many), Egypt, Catal Huyuk, Mohenjo Daro, Indus, China, Mexico, and megalithic cultures in England, Malta, France etc.

But. Not. A. Single. In. The. South.

Even with a 3:1 ratio I had expected at least something in the south.

Sure. There are a lot of ways to skin the cat of developing urbanization and complex political systems. And then there are civilizations that apparently collapsed, despite at some point having had all the necessary ingredients.
Because of the diversity of modes of living and cultures, dividing human populations into distinct global tiers or regional civilizations isn't a particularly useful thing to do. You can pinpoint the emergence of agriculture or urbanization to certain places, but such things tend to spread like wildfire across landmasses. And we can talk in general terms about nomads versus high societies, but that doesn't help us understand the nuances of the Jurchen invasion of China versus the Mongolian invasion, or the eventual coup by post-Jurchen Manchu mercenaries.

Most contemporary "theories of civilization" are political, and seek to explain international relations in terms of conflict between civilization blocs. Western Civilization vs. the Muslim World, democracy vs. theocracy, higher society vs. lower, white vs. black vs. asian. That's one way to explain (or justify) wars based on nationalism or racism, hence the Nazi connection.

By some definitions, the globe is interconnected enough that modern humanity constitutes a single continuous civilization. The Kardashev scale, describing a planetary civilization in terms of the energy it is able to harness, more or less assumes this.

Look again at the world map you replied to. At the equivalent latitude to Europe, most of Asia and North America but southwards there is just ocean and the tip of South America. There's simply much more land in the north. Besides which, there are at least the Incas and their precursor civilizations south of the equator, just off the top of my head.

Take some sand with your hand.
Let it flow of your hand.
Congratulation, you have a pyramid

It uses the scientific method so I hate burst you're bubble.

Why are the words upside down in your pic?

A world map with Antarctica at the top is comfy af for some reason

Someone please explain

>Pyramids are the most primitive way of building high.
Why you think there's so much fuzz about the construction of the pyramids?

no, you have a cone

now go in an open field and draw a perfect square with a 50m rope and 4 poles: if you are 1 degree off you lose

meanwhile, I need only 1 pole and that rope to draw a perfect circle, and it's even bigger, and the center is exactly where I wanted

Only for conspiracy theorists maybe. Pyramids follow a pretty simple principle: Stack rock over rock

Reverse Europe looks like some fanatsy gme country

>Stack rock over rock...

...and you get a nuraghe:


False flag

>stone henge

Probably legit alien shit

>building high

Because the [math]C_{3v}[/math] group is the best.

have fun building the cones as big as the pyramids in egypt. I bet carving tousands of huge stones, so that the outwards facing side has a smooth, perfectly round surface will work just fine and the end result will be aestetically pleasing

You asociate ice, snow and cold automatically with north. You now have a map where you see ice in the "north" instead of in the "south".
Your world makes sense now and you feel happy

>That's one way to explain (or justify) wars based on nationalism or racism, hence the Nazi connection.
Considering the ethnicities of these ancient civilizations hardly fell in under the white aryan stereotype and also given that race was not really an issue with the latitude theory it is hard to understand how this could be considered nazi ideology.

I am genuinely curious, unfortunately any searching lands me in bat crazy conspiracy land so if you have some insight into this I'd be all ears.

Oh I duno.

Wew, pyramids are trivial novelties after looking at that for a few minutes.

Nice Mercator projection, faggot

That structure is much more difficult than a basic pyramid.

Did you just say that Vikings were manlets that can't lift?

>At the equivalent latitude to Europe, most of Asia and North America but southwards there is just ocean and the tip of South America.
You are looking a bit too far north. Try rather about 30 degrees north and you will find Mesopotamia, Mohenjo Daro and more. Catal Huyuk is perhaps the northernmost ancient culture that is not megalithic.

Looking 30 degrees south of equator you will intersect a lot of South America, most of South Africa and about the widest part of Australia. None of these are exactly famous for their ancient civilizations.