You know, Just chillin, having a bud, breaking the laws of physics... True... True.

Well I was playing around with shapes on Excel making graphs and stuff then it got me thinking... About the laws of physics and area... And all area broke down and re converted should cover the same area right?

For example... If you break down a 32x32 inch square, you'd be able to rebuilt it in a different form but it would not miss any thing out, there would be the exact same ammount of area right?

Well, I did the same with a triangle and I was amazed to find that even though the same are is used, it needs more to complete the triangle.

Can you figure this out? Or have I broke the laws of physics? =P

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/5528/triangle8mn.gif

OMG. Freaky. O_O

Erm.. What?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlackCrayons

Erm.. What?

---

Either;

A) You're confused at my amazement.
B) You're confused at the whole thing.

WHICH IS IT BOY!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karl

Either;

A) You're confused at my amazement.
B) You're confused at the whole thing.

WHICH IS IT BOY!?

---

Girl and B) I'm confused at the whole thing.

swear i've seen it before. ;>

Girl, boy... Same thing...

Well lets use something simple... Say you have a bar of six chocolate pieces and you layed them out in a row, you would always have the same area when you change it right? You would still have 6 chocolate pieces that cover the same area when broken down.

But this, when the shapes were broken down they cover LESS area in the SAME shape with the same area. Which is really odd.

Oooh, I get it now ;)

Karl you do such random things in your spare time. :p

I don't get it..

That's not the laws of physics, it's like some unknown maths Law. I guess if you broke the law then Officer Whiplash will have to pay you a visit...
http://halloweencostumeboutique.com/images/2170.jpg

Wowowowowowow.

Rofl, all you people that don't understand it are morons ;D I'm sure this is a simple answer too this.. *Stares at pictures..6Hours later "Not sure yet"* ;o
Tis a good one

You didn't make this...
I've seen this A BILLION times on optical illusion sites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homesrfan

You didn't make this...
I've seen this A BILLION times on optical illusion sites.

---

Tell us what it is before I phone the little google man too get me a site too the answer *cries*
Edit; Found it

Lmao, that's messing with my head, I'm trying to work out why it doesn't work. Aaah!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordan

Lmao, that's messing with my head, I'm trying to work out why it doesn't work. Aaah!

---

There are not triangles, infact they are quadrilaterals! If you look ever so closely you will see a slight concave in both triangles. The rate at which they rise will change. The both reach the same points of 5 High and 13 Long but one of them uses on less square too get there (the bottom one). That is as simple as I could put it ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Infrontation

There are not triangles, infact they are quadrilaterals! If you look ever so closely you will see a slight concave in both triangles. The rate at which they rise will change. The both reach the same points of 5 High and 13 Long but one of them uses on less square too get there (the bottom one). That is as simple as I could put it ;)

---

Holy crap...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordan

Holy crap...

---

Yes indeed, you make presumptions that you do not even though in most cases. You presume that these are of course triangles and they're nothing but triangles and you start too measure out the squares too make sure the litle guy on paint didn't sneakily change one the four shapes too be a square less off!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Infrontation

Yes indeed, you make presumptions that you do not even though in most cases. You presume that these are of course triangles and they're nothing but triangles and you start too measure out the squares too make sure the litle guy on paint didn't sneakily change one the four shapes too be a square less off!

---

Gee, why didn't I think of that eh?

Weirdddd ;s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordan

Gee, why didn't I think of that eh?

---

Lmao cause most normal people's brains don't think about increasing the slope on triangles by about 0.1cms -.-' At least your sane unlike the guy who made this who is now either in a maths lab or in a luoony bin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karl

Girl, boy... Same thing...

Well lets use something simple... Say you have a bar of six chocolate pieces and you layed them out in a row, you would always have the same area when you change it right? You would still have 6 chocolate pieces that cover the same area when broken down.

But this, when the shapes were broken down they cover LESS area in the SAME shape with the same area. Which is really odd.

---

Cos in rl some pieces of chocolate would break off ;]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cassay

Cos in rl some pieces of chocolate would break off ;]

---

Meh not neccesarily ;> You could stick the chocolate into a oven and cut it ;p

When you cut it the pieces would drop off with it like millimetres of it ? :]

Umm, I get the chocolate thing, but WTH at the first post, i seriously don't get that :(

You have broke the laws of physics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Embean

Umm, I get the chocolate thing, but WTH at the first post, i seriously don't get that :(

---

Read my previous posts replying Jordan's queries ;0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Embean

Umm, I get the chocolate thing, but WTH at the first post, i seriously don't get that :(

---

Basically the 2nd triangles at a tiny tiny tiny tiny x infinite slope

They're not the same size...that is probably it. Or maybe its the slope that's different.

EDIT: Rofl you guys figured it out too fast ;[

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cassay

Basically the 2nd triangles at a tiny tiny tiny tiny x infinite slope

---

They're both sloped ;) The first one is sloped more than the other though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Infrontation

They're both sloped ;) The first one is sloped more than the other though

---

SHH :'( CONFUSIN ME ITS NT NICE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cassay

SHH :'( CONFUSIN ME ITS NT NICE

---

Not Nice, But good fun ;)

omg..how wierd :s :s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Infrontation

Not Nice, But good fun ;)

---

*beats with eloy*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Groovy

omg..how wierd :s :s

---

Weird? Its mega Confusing. I just look at this Thread and my brain explodes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Infrontation

Not Nice, But good fun ;)

---

Them being sliped by like 1 MM doesn't relieve the fact that there is 1 whole block missing.

A) Would you people read the thread I have already gave you a explanation for those that are confused on the ending of page 2/
B) If you continue too beat me with eloy I shall take it and eat it
Edit; The angle is tilted by 1degrees or so. The shapes use more room when they are tilted upwards and ultimately create that gap I think .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neversoft

Weird? Its mega Confusing. I just look at this Thread and my brain explodes.

---

*hits dead brain with eloy*


*continues to hit infrontation with eloy till he dies*

Also.. if you look at the squares around the shapes (the grid, basically), the amount of spacing is different between the two.