The strongest bites in the animal kingdom

[LonePredator]

(05-15-2022, 10:16 PM)Wrapp Wrote:

(05-15-2022, 10:06 PM)LonePredator Wrote: You just either lack the required common sense to understand this comparison or you aren't using it. Just use your common sense, if I did assume the shape AND the same mass, then wouldn't the bite force have come out the same for both? WHICH IS NOT the case.

 
Brother, you hopefully will soon realise who fits for this sentence.
Thats what I said. If you assume the same shape and proportions, there would be no need for any comparison. 
You understand the issue with your equation and are still not properly demonstrating youe method since you are worried about getting falsified.
Okay, in that case, let me commit to this.

(05-15-2022, 10:06 PM)LonePredator Wrote: I calculated the ratio of the Tiger's mass to the Jaguar's mass (the values are still kept separate) and then I did a cube root of it (since both the masses are cubically proportional to 1 dimensional values but the ratio still presents a SEPARATE value for both)
I did the same for cross sectional area but instead did a square root.

This can be understood as soon as we see the equation. This isnt something to be understood only after you make it a sentence. I am asking about the logic behind including the values of the tigers and jaguars, and then saying you are isometrically scaling only the value of the jaguar using the Galilio's rule. You cant give a logic cuz there isnt one.

You said the following and I QUOTE:

"The cross sectional surface area doesn’t increase with the power of 2 or 1/2 if the volume is by the "cube" or cube root (obviously), even if the composition/ density and everything is the same."

That is what you said and I quoted you word by word. NOW YOU TELL me what you said there is right or wrong? (hint: it's COMPLETELY WRONG) because the square cube law says the exact opposite of what you said Reply