Talk:Barberpole illusion

"Real" motion

who said it was "obvious" when in a round shape? I saw the lines advencing in a diagonal manner (top-left to bottom-right). There is no way to define the "real" movement here (left to right, top to bottom and top-left to bottom-right movements will give exactly the same pixels over time, whatever the shape of the window). Anon

This isn't a great animation. Its a bit too slow to create a compelling effect. Also, I moved the circular aperture figure to the left so it isn't colinear with the 'pole' version above. The two figures are probably being grouped so the motion appears the same. As for your comment that there is no way to define the "real" motion... welcome to the wonderful world of visual perception! Famousdog 13:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The world of visual perception may be wonderful, but the quoted sentence is still incorrect. Even if we assume that the "real" motion is horizontal, a person looking at the image can see either horizontal, vertical or diagonal movement, whichever he chooses (and I believe the diagonal is the most natural). So the horizontal motion is far from being obvious. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Extensive re-write. Hope that's clearer. The "horizontal motion" alluded to was the physical direction of spin in a real barberpole, not the perceived direction. The confusion is a result of the fact is that there is no "real" or "true" motion. The physical motion of a spinning pole is not remotely what we perceive. Famousdog 14:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. I've made some additional modifications. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Illusion is similar to movement of screws

Screws cause actual things to move sideways or up and down when rotated. This mechanic might be responsible for our perception of an upward/downward/sideways movement in this illusion. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barberpole illusion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723055513/http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0048-5705/2002/0048-57050203209T.pdf to http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0048-5705/2002/0048-57050203209T.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100726233125/http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2003/07/fitzpatrick715.html to http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2003/07/fitzpatrick715.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)