The triangles are actually different, upon closer inspection. They're really more like parallelograms. The main difference is in the slopes, the angles are a little different.
And I'm explaining this poorly. I'm tired. ;)
The two triangular components having different slopes, and thuse making the whole thing a parallelagram, instead of a true triangle, cause there to be a slight 'dent' in the hypotaneuse of the 'triangle'. Compare the heights of the whole figure at the edges of the front triangle in both images with the height on the other figure, and you can see they don't match up. This is where the hole 'goes' in the original view.
Yup! At the Topeka newspaper we were hammering this out one day and it was when I realized that the green and red (?) triangles look to have identical slopes, they don't, as evidenced that their edge-ratio doesn't remain the same (2/5 vs 3/8). Thick edges make the hypotenuses look linear despite their bulge.
It's a fun little regressive exercise in geometry, though.
What? You mean that's not really William Katt? (And I had to consult the comments before I recognized Punky Brewster. Oh, the pain of growing up in a house without NBC....)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
And I'm explaining this poorly. I'm tired. ;)
The two triangular components having different slopes, and thuse making the whole thing a parallelagram, instead of a true triangle, cause there to be a slight 'dent' in the hypotaneuse of the 'triangle'. Compare the heights of the whole figure at the edges of the front triangle in both images with the height on the other figure, and you can see they don't match up. This is where the hole 'goes' in the original view.
From:
no subject
You can see how the hypotaneuseses don't quite match up.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
It's a fun little regressive exercise in geometry, though.
From:
no subject
From:
hah!
(Start's humming the tune to The Greatest American Hero...)
From:
Re: hah!