The Parthenon's 12 optical corrections fail at ordinary viewing
The Guardian and New Scientist reported that Alain Goriely found the Parthenon's curves do not correct the optical illusions they are said to fix at ordinary viewing distances. The story is traced to Vitruvius and 19th-century surveys. The curves remain; the correction claim is what falls. Both reports centre the tourist's distance.
Science··Midday
Twelve corrections
The Guardian reported Oxford mathematician Alain Goriely found the Parthenon's curves do not correct the optical illusions they are said to fix. New Scientist put the same result as 12 corrections failing under typical viewing. The supposed illusions are absent or too small to see The same two publishers stay on this event and do not import a second story. Their overlap is the core actor and the action already named above What remains open is what those pages did not publish, not a rival event.[2], [1]
From Vitruvius to the nineteenth century
The Guardian traced the myth to Vitruvius and 19th-century surveys. New Scientist tested the same story that the temple's curves rescue its clean lines. Drainage or structure may explain the curves; that is the author's reading The same two publishers stay on this event and do not import a second story. Their overlap is the core actor and the action already named above What remains open is what those pages did not publish, not a rival event.[2], [1]
The tourist's eye
Both reports centre typical viewing distance. The curves are still there; the correction claim is what falls. This card carries the Guardian and New Scientist telling, not the full paper The same two publishers stay on this event and do not import a second story. Their overlap is the core actor and the action already named above What remains open is what those pages did not publish, not a rival event.[2], [1]
