Collection of Visual, Scary And Funny Illusions

Optical Illusions

New Optical Illusion – Missing Piece

How do you explain the missing piece?
New Optical Illusion


(48 votes, average: 4.25 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Email This Post Email This Post

Related Posts

29
  • 1

    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 on July 8th, 2008
  • 2

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

    miek on July 23rd, 2008
  • 3

    its just that way :P

    dude on July 31st, 2008
  • 4

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

    elcon on September 5th, 2008
  • 5

    That is Called Illusion
    Nice….

    Nagoor on September 13th, 2008
  • 6

    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

    Dan on September 19th, 2008
  • 7

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

    ldsbn[fokh on November 4th, 2008
  • 8

    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.

    Physics Man on November 26th, 2008
  • 9

    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

    peter on December 30th, 2008
  • 10

    stupidooo…
    im really crazy with the illusion…

    janggo on January 17th, 2009
  • 11

    Its aranged in different ways , its the same pieces!

    Alex on January 29th, 2009
  • 12

    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.

    Dylan on March 23rd, 2009
  • 13

    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 on March 30th, 2009
  • 14

    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

    ro on June 8th, 2009
  • 15

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

    kellee on October 24th, 2009
  • 16

    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).

    Art on January 17th, 2010
  • 17

    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.

    John J on April 12th, 2010
  • 18

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

    Welsonn on May 16th, 2010
  • 19

    The hypotenuse is bent.

    Kenobro on June 8th, 2010
  • 20

    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

    annonymous on June 26th, 2010
  • 21

    Art, you rule… Thanks for explaining.

    Don on July 26th, 2010
  • 22

    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-

    Action McJackson on August 2nd, 2010
  • 23

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

    leeanne on August 7th, 2010
  • 24

    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.

    Dan on August 30th, 2010
  • 25

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

    nottellin on August 30th, 2010
  • 26

    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.

    Fox on November 4th, 2010
  • 27

    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).

    Rob on March 24th, 2011
  • 28

    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

    Red on August 18th, 2011
  • 29

    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.

    Anonymous 2 on June 28th, 2014


+ nine = 13