Frequently Asked Forum Questions | ||||
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
: I find your lack of imagination disturbing.
Just to explain my reasoning...
a) to have disc planes able to rotate out into a 'spiral'-like shape, while also being able to rotate back into a spherical shape, having a central pole through the actual center of the installation wouldn't accomplish that.
b) The pole could be off-center (w/a maximum distance of the radius of the smallest disc), allowing a slight misalignment when each disc is rotated on the pole axis, producing a minimal spiral effect.
c) With a curved axis from N to S pole, there's a greater axis offset for the more central discs to rotate and create a much more exaggerated spiral effect when re-aligned.
"Spiral-shaped, the capital was composed of a series of circular platforms which decreased in size towards either end of a central rod."
Now, this is why I said 'most obvious' because the description of the installation could easily be read to imply that sort of structure. However, there could also be variations that could still be described in a similar manner.
The question is, how do you interpret "central rod"? Straight? Curved? Slightly off-center?
Additionally: "the capital was capable of rotating its sections to form a spherical shape, protecting them from outside."
How do you interpret "spherical shape"?
There's a bit of flexibility, lots of room for creativity :)