PHArchivist
Master Member
I'm becoming more convinced...
Doing similar "geometric gymnastics" with the photos from Gus's site offer similar results. The "circle" in the image attached is not truly a circle.
I think what is throwing me a little bit is our verbiage, or terminology. To be technically accurate, I don't believe it is "wider at the equator", but (again to be technically correct) "shorter at the poles".
I'd bet real money that when the original was built, the hemispheres were cut such that the result was slightly less than a true hemisphere, reducing the height of each individual dome, and making the end result shorter at the poles (and, yes -- subsequently wider at the equator!
).
We've hashed all this out in the past, haven't we...? Sorry for bringing it up again... :unsure
Doing similar "geometric gymnastics" with the photos from Gus's site offer similar results. The "circle" in the image attached is not truly a circle.
I think what is throwing me a little bit is our verbiage, or terminology. To be technically accurate, I don't believe it is "wider at the equator", but (again to be technically correct) "shorter at the poles".
I'd bet real money that when the original was built, the hemispheres were cut such that the result was slightly less than a true hemisphere, reducing the height of each individual dome, and making the end result shorter at the poles (and, yes -- subsequently wider at the equator!
We've hashed all this out in the past, haven't we...? Sorry for bringing it up again... :unsure
Last edited: