This is SO WEIRD

StormWarrior

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22492511-5005375,00.html?from=mostpop

No matter how hard I try, I can only see her going clockwise! I suppose that explains why my maths is so bad.

2Scoops

Interesting optical illusion. Nothing to do with left or right brain function though.

mathias

The best way to see it change direction is to stare at her foot , does the trick for me every time ,
and yes , that tosh about left right brain function is rubbish.

On a slightly related topic , illusions like this can be induced , I used to get the bus to work every day , if you close your eyes and force yourself , its easy to get the feeling the bus is going backwards. Ever do that ?
I know , way to much time on my hands!

Jeapy

I could see it both ways. More's the question, was anyone else distracted by her nipples? Im a hetero girl!!!

MathsManiac

Saw it anti-clockwise first, but could force myself to see it the other way. And switching got easier the more often I did it. I have to look away and look back to switch. (Easiest way for me is to close my eyes for a second and visualise her turning the other way before opening them again, but I can do it now by just glancing away and back.) Anyone able to switch while looking straight at it?

tech77

MathsManiac wrote: »

Saw it anti-clockwise first, but could force myself to see it the other way. And switching got easier the more often I did it. I have to look away and look back to switch. (Easiest way for me is to close my eyes for a second and visualise her turning the other way before opening them again, but I can do it now by just glancing away and back.) Anyone able to switch while looking straight at it?

Am I wrong to suggest that she can only strictly be seen to move anticlockwise:

In other words when the shadow of her raised leg is in-picture it is obviously distant meaning it is the shadow of her raised leg when pointing away from us.

But the shadow is only ever distant when her left leg is pointing away from us.
(The alternative with the right leg pointing toward us wouldn't make sense with the shadow distant).

So with left leg raised she moves anticlockwise.
Isn't this correct?

Catcher86

Initially I saw it clockwise, but can see it both ways.
The best way I think to do this is if you wait until her feet are facing you at a 90 degree angle, at the left side of the screen and imagine her pivoting and the going left. (anticlockwise)
The opposite applys of the right. (clockwise)
A strange thing can start happening where you constantly see her turning after each 90 degree turn.

tech77, I think you might be mistaken.
Look at it this way, when she is going clockwise she has her back to the light when the shadows cross.
When she is going anticlockwise she has her front to light when the shadows cross.

mikemac

I only see anti-clockwise and no matter how hard I try I can't see clockwise:(

radiospan

I was lookin at this for ages and could only see her turning clockwise.

Eventually, by looking at the bottom of the picture (ie- her shadow) I saw it anti-clockwise, but when I look back at her it changes back again.

Try staring at only her shadow if you're having trouble seeing it both ways.

tech77

Look at it this way, when she is going clockwise she has her back to the light when the shadows cross.

OK.
Scenario 1: Clockwise.
This necessarily means raised right leg.
However when her raised right leg points away from us the shadow is curiously absent.
And when the raised right leg comes around to the foreground the shadow curiously reappears.
This is clearly incongruous (to me atleast).

Why would you see the shadowing of a near leg yet not see the shadowing of a distant leg?
Surely if you see the shadowing of the near leg you'll also see the shadow of the distant leg.

Scenario 2: Anticlockwise
This necessarily means raised left leg.
When her raised left leg points away from us the shadow is clearly visible.
When the raised left leg comes around to the foreground the shadow disappears.

This makes sense:
A distant raised left leg projects a distant shadow (apparent).
A near raised left leg projects a near shadow (which dips out of picture).

Edit:
To confirm the above, if you look at it and make sure to concentrate on the shadowing as well, you should only see her go anticlockwise.
But if you then cover the shadowing with your hand you can see her go either way.

projectmayhem

micmclo wrote: »

I only see anti-clockwise and no matter how hard I try I can't see clockwise:(

polar opposite here.

and the BBC rundown of left v right brain stuff has me down to a tee....

starflake

I cannot see it in a clockwise direction..... but this here vid clip really had me intrigued...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo8CP9Hhb58

Catcher86

tech77 wrote: »

OK.
Scenario 1: Clockwise.
This necessarily means raised right leg.
However when her raised right leg points away from us the shadow is curiously absent.
And when the raised right leg comes around to the foreground the shadow curiously reappears.
This is clearly incongruous (to me atleast).

Why would you see the shadowing of a near leg yet not see the shadowing of a distant leg?
Surely if you see the shadowing of the near leg you'll also see the shadow of the distant leg.

Scenario 2: Anticlockwise
This necessarily means raised left leg.
When her raised left leg points away from us the shadow is clearly visible.
When the raised left leg comes around to the foreground the shadow disappears.

This makes sense:
A distant raised left leg projects a distant shadow (apparent).
A near raised left leg projects a near shadow (which dips out of picture).

Edit:
To confirm the above, if you look at it and make sure to concentrate on the shadowing as well, you should only see her go anticlockwise.
But if you then cover the shadowing with your hand you can see her go either way.

I am not an exapert but are you sure that directions or angles of light can't explain this for a given situation?
What about mirrors? If she was standing in front of a mirror?

tech77

Catcher86 wrote: »

I am not an exapert but are you sure that directions or angles of light can't explain this for a given situation?
What about mirrors? If she was standing in front of a mirror?

Like yourself i'm no expert but I can't see how a mirror would change the situation.

I maintain there is no way that a near leg shadow would be apparent and a distant leg shadow wouldn't.

Even if the plane underneath her (onto which the shadows were being projected) sloped AWAY from us you would still see a distant leg shadow, given the location of the near leg shadow.

Therefore she only truly turns anticlockwise.

Catcher86

tech77 wrote: »

Like yourself i'm no expert but I can't see how a mirror would change the situation.

I maintain there is no way that a near leg shadow would be apparent and a distant leg shadow wouldn't.

Even if the plane underneath her (onto which the shadows were being projected) sloped AWAY from us you would still see a distant leg shadow, given the location of the near leg shadow.

Therefore she only truly turns anticlockwise.

I was looking at it again, and I see what you mean. You must be right.
Did you leave a comment on the page?
Maybe you could try emailing them, just to see how they try to explain it.

tech77

Catcher86 wrote: »

I was looking at it again, and I see what you mean. You must be right.
Did you leave a comment on the page?
Maybe you could try emailing them, just to see how they try to explain it.

At last.
Thank god someone agrees with me.
I thought I was going crazy there for a while.

TBH I think the incongruous/congruous shadowing may be intentional and the whole rationale for the puzzle.

I think your brain either tends to go with the congruous (anticlockwise) or the incongruous (clockwise) version.

The right/left brain thing may even follow from that..
Clockwise>Incongruous>Right brain(illogical/ open to other possibility etc?).
Anticlockwise>Congruous>Left brain(logical/rooted in reality etc?).

Then again that might be complete BS I dunno..
that's just my take on it.

Funnily enough my brain initially went with the clockwise one.

MathsManiac

Whereas I agree with the logic of tech77's analysis above, I think that if the matter were really that straightforward, then your brain wouldn't let you see it the other way. The difficulty is, I think, that the dancer does not necessarily appear to spinning entirely on a vertical axis. I get the impression that her foot dips closer to the floor at the moment the shadow is close to it (near side / far side, depending on how you're seeing her). Her foot dipping closer to the floor could bring the shadow into view at the near side even if it were invisible at the far side, although the dipping would need to be substantial to overcome the distance involved. This impression of dipping and rising is somewhat assisted by the motion of the whole figure up and down, I think.

One way or another, it's a fascinating illusion.