How do you explain the missing piece?

Email This Post

29

- 3D Chalk Drawings
- 3D Optical Illusion
- Advertisements
- After Images
- Ambiguous Optical Illusions
- Anamorphism
- Cognitive Gestalt Effects
- Color Adapting
- Disappearing Effect
- Funny Optical Illusions
- Geometrical Illusion
- Hand Painted Illusions
- Hidden Illusions
- Illusion Artists
- Impossible Objects
- Jesus Optical Illusions
- Kids Optical Illusions
- Morphing
- Motion Aftereffects
- Moving Optical Illusions
- Multiple Meanings
- Murals
- Optical Illusion Art
- Optical Illusion Pictures
- Optical Illusion Videos
- Perceptual Transparency
- Ponzo Illusions
- Scary Optical Illusions
- Seemingly Bent
- Shape and Size Optical Illusions
- Stereograms
- User Submitted
- Visual Optical Illusions

- Old Mexican Man or Girl
- Sleeping Man or Sleeping Woman
- Sphere Factor
- North Star – Art in the Orchard
- Depths
- A Hole New Dimension
- Which Side Are The Dots Rotating?
- Spot The Error
- Somewhere Written by Metal Wires
- Strainer Face

- Scary House Illusion - 995 votes
- Scary Family Picture - 620 votes
- Very Scary Girl Picture - 400 votes
- Face or hands? Optical Illusions - 390 votes
- Scary Eyes Illusion - 339 votes
- Moving Text Optical Illusions - 318 votes
- Horse Optical Illusion - 317 votes
- Jesus – New Optical Illusions - 307 votes
- Count Cubes Illusion - 283 votes
- Painting Or Reality - 264 votes

ITS BECAUSE OF THE GREEN AND THE ORANGE PIECE THE ORANGE PIECE FITS FINE IN THE TOP IMAGE BUT HAS A SQUARE TO LESS IN THE BOTTOM ONE

ANNA XX

anna your retarded. if you actualy counted it youd see they still equal 15 in each picture

its just that way

wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is Called Illusion

Nice….

Look at the 12th box from the left, 3rd down and compare with the same box on the bottom illustration, you’ll see that the top is slanted more than the bottom, so much so that it accounts for one empty box. Whoever did this is very intelligent. Good job

Niiice, but don’t be mean to anna i wulda thought the same thing you so mean r-tard fagg..

Actually, if you get a sheet of graph paper and do it yourself, you will find that there is in fact a missing square when you rearrange the pieces.

I have yet to find an explanation… but maybe we should just accept that life doesn’t always follow the ‘logical’ or ‘normal’ pattern.

the green triangle is steeper than the red one (5 boxes horizontaly and 2 verticaly to 8 boxes horizontaly to 3 verticaly)and you can see the diference if you shrink the picture

stupidooo…

im really crazy with the illusion…

Its aranged in different ways , its the same pieces!

I still don’t get it. I understand how the triangles bulge out and make a complete square, so there’s an extra square there. But I don’t understand how they removed that missing part of it. The shapes line up with the grid.

The green triangle and the red trianlge are not similar, i.e. they have different angles, as peter said. quite a small difference too

smelly, if you new basic geometry you wouldnt say things like “The green triangle and the red trianlge are not similar, i.e. they have different angles”. The red & green triangles have the SAME angles because the other 2 pairs of angles that are not right are CORRESPONDENT ANGLES

This thing is hard!Does any one even know the answer to this thing…

It took me a while but I think I got it: The slopes of the two triangles are different (2/5 for green and 3/8 for red). The difference is very small and it seems they are the same when placed next to each other. The area under the green triangle is smaller (5X3); the area under the red triangle is bigger (8X2). Not so fast though…this has nothing to do with which triangle has the larger slope. It has to do with which one “sits” on a larger rectangular area. Because the red triangle is so long, it sits on a larger area. Go Physics (and math).

God some of you thick, the long edge of the top triangle is bent downwards and the bottom triangle bent upwards, the difference being one square.

Anna’s comment is a more mind-boggling puzzle here! HAHA! What th’ hell is she trying to say?!

The hypotenuse is bent.

OMG YOU PEOPLE ARE DUMB NO MAGIC NO ILLUSION all u do is fit the orange one against the green one then put the red one on top of the orange and green pieces and put the green slope were the red slop was and tada the “piece” is missing man am i really the only one who has figured that out

Art, you rule… Thanks for explaining.

Despite if you can allow yourself to think you understand this one, there is still one glaring dilemma. These are the same size pieces, and when rearranged they actually decrease the overall size. The difference in slope should not replace the idea that this is a natural phenomenon should not be missed haha! Thats some pretty amazing stuff if you ask me. -to anna, please think your words through before you say them hahhahahahhaha-

the missing piece color is greeeeeeen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As some have tried to explain before, the illusion is that the triangle is not really a triangle, and the whole shape of it actually does change slightly from the first to the second configuration. Because the green and red triangles have different slopes, the hypotenuse actually bends in or out depending on how you have them lined up. If you drew a true straight line from corner to corner, you’d find that the first figure (green on top) has a hole in it of roughly half a square in area. The second figure (red on top) actually has an extra half square on the hypotenuse. This difference of two halves adds up to make the whole square “disappear” in the second figure.

the top one is steeper if u look at the squares the top will not be the same spot as the bottom

I did the thing in Paint.net for pure accuracy. The setting were one square was 32 pixels by 32 pixels. For those not good at math that’s 1024 pixels total. when I highlighted the area difference covered along the slant between the 2 configurations it was 1024 pixels difference. The exact area of the square that seems to be missing. People don’t see that because it is this thin little sliver of a difference. The angles of the triangles are not exactly the same so you wind up with a slight convex in one arrangement and slight concave in the other arrangement. It’s the area difference between the concave and convex that gives you the appearance of an extra square.

To understand the concept more easily, let’s replace the triangles with rectangles.

A (triangle/rectangle 1)

B (triangle/rectangle 2)

C1 and C2 (resulting area)

x = A/B base or length

y = A/B height

C1 = Ax+By

C2 = Ay+Bx

The entire figure will always maintain the same height and the same length, independently from the position of the 2 reference figures (rectangles or triangles), also the other 2 figuers aren’t necessary . The simple reality is that “x” and “y” will always differ (excluding, obviously, the case where Ax+By=Ay+Bx).

In the case where rectangles are employed, an increase and/or decrease in “x” direction and “y” direction (depending on the dimensions of the rectangles) of the figure is immediately apparent on the arrangement between configuration 1 and 2.

In the case of the utilization of triangles, “Fox” dude has explained it very clearly.

“The setting were one square was 32 pixels by 32 pixels. For those not good at math that’s 1024 pixels total. when I highlighted the area difference covered along the slant between the 2 configurations it was 1024 pixels difference. The exact area of the square that seems to be missing. People don’t see that because it is this thin little sliver of a difference. The angles of the triangles are not exactly the same so you wind up with a slight convex in one arrangement and slight concave in the other arrangement. It’s the area difference between the concave and convex that gives you the appearance of an extra square.”

~Fox on November 4th, 2010 (26th comment).

This is not nearly as complicated as you are making it out to be. Yes, the red and blue triangles have slightly different slopes. The whole completed shape looks like a triangle, but the slope does change moving from red to blue, so the larger shape is actually NOT a triangle. As someone said above….it is the hair’s difference between convex and concave.

Ignore the triangles and look solely at the area covered by the green and orange pieces. In the first they cover a 3×5 rectangle. That’s 15 squares. 7 in one and 8 in the other. In the second image, the same shapes attempt to cover a 2×8 rectangle. That’s 16 squares….one more than the 15 able to be covered by the two shapes. Take that missing square and spread it out over the long concave diagonal, and it’s not noticeable to the naked eye

I know this is old, but it’s amazing how people insist on complicating something that is so simple (to make themselves feel smarter than they really are?). The only person who’s been even close to right is annonymous on June 26th, 2010. And the triangles are the same. Good Lord.