Comments on: Impossible Triangle Illusion no.2 http://www.moillusions.com/2006/03/impossible-triangle-illusion-no2.html Biggest Optical Illusions blog. Dedicated to visual phenomena and real life illusions. Daily updated. Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:33:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: nobody http://www.moillusions.com/2006/03/impossible-triangle-illusion-no2.html/comment-page-3#comment-93454 nobody Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:31:32 +0000 http://testvurdlak8.wordpress.com/2006/03/19/impossible-triangle-illusion-no-2/#comment-93454 i dont get it WEIRD i dont get it

WEIRD

]]> By: Alexa http://www.moillusions.com/2006/03/impossible-triangle-illusion-no2.html/comment-page-3#comment-92496 Alexa Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:37:39 +0000 http://testvurdlak8.wordpress.com/2006/03/19/impossible-triangle-illusion-no-2/#comment-92496 The second triangle is greater than the first few millimeters, 1 millimeter to the left of 1 millimeter and one millimeter from the top right, and because of this that space remains empty, is tested by me, porblema solved! The second triangle is greater than the first few millimeters, 1 millimeter to the left of 1 millimeter and one millimeter from the top right, and because of this that space remains empty, is tested by me, porblema solved!

]]> By: grummbunger http://www.moillusions.com/2006/03/impossible-triangle-illusion-no2.html/comment-page-3#comment-92272 grummbunger Sun, 21 Feb 2010 05:30:21 +0000 http://testvurdlak8.wordpress.com/2006/03/19/impossible-triangle-illusion-no-2/#comment-92272 this gets into the 2/3 .. 23 .. .666 deceptive truth. this gets into the 2/3 .. 23 .. .666 deceptive truth.

]]> By: unknown http://www.moillusions.com/2006/03/impossible-triangle-illusion-no2.html/comment-page-3#comment-90989 unknown Mon, 08 Feb 2010 02:27:58 +0000 http://testvurdlak8.wordpress.com/2006/03/19/impossible-triangle-illusion-no-2/#comment-90989 oh, i see it now the spare square comes from the orange part cuz it doesn't fit horizontally to the green part. and also the first 'triangle-like' shape is not a triangle oh, i see it now
the spare square comes from the orange part cuz it doesn’t fit horizontally to the green part.
and also the first ‘triangle-like’ shape is not a triangle

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.moillusions.com/2006/03/impossible-triangle-illusion-no2.html/comment-page-3#comment-88867 Anonymous Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:37:44 +0000 http://testvurdlak8.wordpress.com/2006/03/19/impossible-triangle-illusion-no-2/#comment-88867 Yes most of the comments are right. I actually calculated the area that is created by the bent hypotenuse. The first picture has 0.5 area less than a straight hypotenuse would have had. The second picture has 0.5 more. add those two up. getting 1 whole box Yes most of the comments are right.
I actually calculated the area that is created by the bent hypotenuse. The first picture has 0.5 area less than a straight hypotenuse would have had. The second picture has 0.5 more. add those two up. getting 1 whole box

]]> By: Obada http://www.moillusions.com/2006/03/impossible-triangle-illusion-no2.html/comment-page-3#comment-88254 Obada Fri, 01 Jan 2010 19:02:57 +0000 http://testvurdlak8.wordpress.com/2006/03/19/impossible-triangle-illusion-no-2/#comment-88254 The longest line in both shapes are not straight, they are bent. The ankle of the red shape is not the same as the green one. When we want to know the size of the shape we draw a rectangle and calculate its surface area (of the first shape). That is 13*5=65. Then we calculate the first shape without dividing 65 by 2. First we calculate the green triangle. 5*2\2=10\2=5. The red triangle is 8*3\2=24\2=12. The green shape + the red shape= 5+12=17. Next we calculate the rectangle made out of the orange and green shapes. That equals 5*3=15. 17+15=32. So 65 – 32=33. That means the first shape’s size is 32 and the second shape’s size is 33. That extra one in the second shape gave it enough room to put one extra square. The longest line in both shapes are not straight, they are bent. The ankle of the red shape is not the same as the green one. When we want to know the size of the shape we draw a rectangle and calculate its surface area (of the first shape). That is 13*5=65. Then we calculate the first shape without dividing 65 by 2. First we calculate the green triangle. 5*2\2=10\2=5. The red triangle is 8*3\2=24\2=12. The green shape + the red shape= 5+12=17. Next we calculate the rectangle made out of the orange and green shapes. That equals 5*3=15. 17+15=32. So 65 – 32=33. That means the first shape’s size is 32 and the second shape’s size is 33. That extra one in the second shape gave it enough room to put one extra square.

]]> By: Dave http://www.moillusions.com/2006/03/impossible-triangle-illusion-no2.html/comment-page-3#comment-86811 Dave Thu, 10 Dec 2009 04:53:39 +0000 http://testvurdlak8.wordpress.com/2006/03/19/impossible-triangle-illusion-no-2/#comment-86811 The guy talking about circumfrences is a retard. the line IS NOT STRAIGHT! the red triangle and the green triangle have DIFFERENT ANGLES. This makes for the big shape being created to NOT be a triangle, it only appears to be a triangle. The guy talking about circumfrences is a retard. the line IS NOT STRAIGHT! the red triangle and the green triangle have DIFFERENT ANGLES. This makes for the big shape being created to NOT be a triangle, it only appears to be a triangle.

]]> By: tom http://www.moillusions.com/2006/03/impossible-triangle-illusion-no2.html/comment-page-3#comment-84683 tom Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:25:33 +0000 http://testvurdlak8.wordpress.com/2006/03/19/impossible-triangle-illusion-no-2/#comment-84683 This is quite simple to figure out. The slope of the hypotenuse of the two triangles are not equal. The smaller green triangle's hypotenuse has a slope of 2/5 while the larger red triangle has a slope of 3/8. Since these slopes are not equal, then the hypotenuse of the assembled triangle is not a straight line. In the top figure the long hypotenuse is actually concave (bowing inward) while in the bottom figure the hypotenuse is convex (bowing outward) making the contained area of the lower triangle greater than that of the top. This is quite simple to figure out. The slope of the hypotenuse of the two triangles are not equal. The smaller green triangle’s hypotenuse has a slope of 2/5 while the larger red triangle has a slope of 3/8. Since these slopes are not equal, then the hypotenuse of the assembled triangle is not a straight line.

In the top figure the long hypotenuse is actually concave (bowing inward) while in the bottom figure the hypotenuse is convex (bowing outward) making the contained area of the lower triangle greater than that of the top.

]]> By: jamie http://www.moillusions.com/2006/03/impossible-triangle-illusion-no2.html/comment-page-3#comment-84271 jamie Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:03:34 +0000 http://testvurdlak8.wordpress.com/2006/03/19/impossible-triangle-illusion-no-2/#comment-84271 long story short, anyone smart enough to recognise the problem already knows the answer. two of the same shapes cant have a different area... so whatever cant be true, isn't. the shapes are either different, or the area is the same. in this case the shapes are different. END OF STORY. but ill keep talking anyways if simple theory doesnt work on you you can do as one person did somewhere above and prove it with simple geometry. he figured it out by calculating all dimensions looking for the inconsistency, and found it.. a different angle on the two triangle. you cannot argue that you built the pieces and it still works, because that is 100% correct, you will accomplish the exact same effect. the illusion here isnt how it is drawn, its just taking a small area, hiding it over a long distance or focusing it in a small space, the small angle is just real hard to see with the eye, and will be only hidden better by trying to tape little pieces of cut out paper together. now if you cut these out v ery accurately, and large enough to work with, and very accurately traces the perimiter, rearanged them as shown, you would see a gap totaling the same area develop, spread out along what is a bent line. basically a waste of time thought, all you did was copy what was already shown on your screen. some of you are making this way way too complicated, others are too stupid to understand the problem. the trick to this isnt math, geometry, trig, its simple theory. the area an object cannot dissapear by rearranging pieces of it, but the resulting shape can change. so the shape of the two triangles MUST be different. and it is. the missing area is hidden along the length of the hypotenuse by the different angle created. long story short, anyone smart enough to recognise the problem already knows the answer. two of the same shapes cant have a different area… so whatever cant be true, isn’t. the shapes are either different, or the area is the same. in this case the shapes are different. END OF STORY.

but ill keep talking anyways

if simple theory doesnt work on you you can do as one person did somewhere above and prove it with simple geometry. he figured it out by calculating all dimensions looking for the inconsistency, and found it.. a different angle on the two triangle.

you cannot argue that you built the pieces and it still works, because that is 100% correct, you will accomplish the exact same effect. the illusion here isnt how it is drawn, its just taking a small area, hiding it over a long distance or focusing it in a small space, the small angle is just real hard to see with the eye, and will be only hidden better by trying to tape little pieces of cut out paper together. now if you cut these out v ery accurately, and large enough to work with, and very accurately traces the perimiter, rearanged them as shown, you would see a gap totaling the same area develop, spread out along what is a bent line. basically a waste of time thought, all you did was copy what was already shown on your screen.

some of you are making this way way too complicated, others are too stupid to understand the problem. the trick to this isnt math, geometry, trig, its simple theory. the area an object cannot dissapear by rearranging pieces of it, but the resulting shape can change. so the shape of the two triangles MUST be different. and it is.

the missing area is hidden along the length of the hypotenuse by the different angle created.

]]> By: dido1983 http://www.moillusions.com/2006/03/impossible-triangle-illusion-no2.html/comment-page-3#comment-84150 dido1983 Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:33:21 +0000 http://testvurdlak8.wordpress.com/2006/03/19/impossible-triangle-illusion-no-2/#comment-84150 [i]Anonymous says: February 23, 2009 at 10:36 pm OK, now, after reading almost all, and I say almost so that i dont insult someone i think you are ALL WRONG. The key here is not trigonometry, nor in the triangles. Let me explain. I think the answer is this – surface area and circumference are NOT in direct relation. This would mean that objects with the same circumference can have different surface area and the other way around. So – Leave the triangles aside, the difference in the two pictures is not their surface area. Its their circumference. Look closely. If you count the squares, their number is the same in both picures, its just that in the bottom picture the overall circumference of the figure is greater. Again to make i easier I will leave the triangles, they are there for confusion and go down to the numbers. In the first picture, we have a rectangle with a surface are of 3×5 = 15 Now. In the second we have a figure that is not an exact rectagle (look only at the coloured part) but this figure stil has a surface area of 15 (just count the coloured squares). So where is the difference?As i said the difference is in the circumference. the first figure (the rectangle) has a circ. of 2×3 + 2×5 = 16 while the second has 2×8 + 2 = 18. (If you a re wondering why I add 2, I will explain. I calculated the circ. of the rectangle with sides – 2 and 8. then subtracted the non coloured bit, which was 1 (remember we are talking about sides, now squares here), but had to add 3, which is the number of coloured sides, all in all -1 + 3 therefore +2. I hope you got it. To sum up. The key in this is the question. And almost all you had it WRONG. the two coloured figures actualy have THE SAME SURFACE AREA. Question is why do two different circumference-s belong two figures with same surface areas? Now proving that in generalall cases is much tougher, but you can make it look easier with a simple exercise. Imagine a cube with a side =4. Now this has a circ = 16 and a surface area again = 16. now draw a rectagnle with a side A = 2, and B = 6. What do you notice. They have the same circ.-s = 16, but the surface area of the second is 2×6 = 12 which is NOT 16. There you go. All non linear conspiracy theories are refuted.[/i] So, dude... if you can't figure out why the apparently straight line isn't really straight, you can pick your favorite ruler and see this for yourself. Or maybe they're not that straight anymore? It's a fact, not a theory. With trigonometry, you can (on theory) see exactly which portions of the elements form the missing square. [i]Anonymous says:
February 23, 2009 at 10:36 pm
OK, now, after reading almost all, and I say almost so that i dont insult someone i think you are ALL WRONG. The key here is not trigonometry, nor in the triangles. Let me explain. I think the answer is this – surface area and circumference are NOT in direct relation. This would mean that objects with the same circumference can have different surface area and the other way around. So – Leave the triangles aside, the difference in the two pictures is not their surface area. Its their circumference. Look closely. If you count the squares, their number is the same in both picures, its just that in the bottom picture the overall circumference of the figure is greater. Again to make i easier I will leave the triangles, they are there for confusion and go down to the numbers.
In the first picture, we have a rectangle with a surface are of 3×5 = 15
Now. In the second we have a figure that is not an exact rectagle (look only at the coloured part) but this figure stil has a surface area of 15 (just count the coloured squares). So where is the difference?As i said the difference is in the circumference. the first figure (the rectangle) has a circ. of 2×3 + 2×5 = 16 while the second has 2×8 + 2 = 18. (If you a re wondering why I add 2, I will explain. I calculated the circ. of the rectangle with sides – 2 and 8. then subtracted the non coloured bit, which was 1 (remember we are talking about sides, now squares here), but had to add 3, which is the number of coloured sides, all in all -1 + 3 therefore +2. I hope you got it. To sum up. The key in this is the question. And almost all you had it WRONG. the two coloured figures actualy have THE SAME SURFACE AREA. Question is why do two different circumference-s belong two figures with same surface areas? Now proving that in generalall cases is much tougher, but you can make it look easier with a simple exercise. Imagine a cube with a side =4. Now this has a circ = 16 and a surface area again = 16. now draw a rectagnle with a side A = 2, and B = 6. What do you notice. They have the same circ.-s = 16, but the surface area of the second is 2×6 = 12 which is NOT 16. There you go. All non linear conspiracy theories are refuted.[/i]

So, dude… if you can’t figure out why the apparently straight line isn’t really straight, you can pick your favorite ruler and see this for yourself. Or maybe they’re not that straight anymore? It’s a fact, not a theory. With trigonometry, you can (on theory) see exactly which portions of the elements form the missing square.

]]>