There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
(05-15-2022, 10:22 PM)LonePredator Wrote: 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
The fact that you said that particular sentence proves that you have absolutely NO CLUE what you're talking about here.
That's more than enough to prove who is the doctor and who is the mental patient in your analogy.
Brother, are you not able to understand, or are pretending to understand nothing?
In the first place, the debate is about saying that you cant use the square cube law here. Then from where do you try to counter me by using the same? First, you need to prove that the square cube law is applicable in this comparison. Only then you can take such statements. I have been saying for such a long time on why the law of square-cube cant be used here.
You still dont give me an answer on why exactly you included the values of tiger and jaguar into an equation, and claiming it to be scaling the jaguar alone. Both are contradicting.
This was the justification you gave me, : "I assumed that the BIGGER JAGUAR would still have the same proportions as THE SMALLER JAGUAR"
You said that the jaguar doesnt change in proportion if you scale it isometrically up or down. Your statement is absolutely correct. This is correct when you scale the jaguar up or down to a particular weight. But, you say of scaling the jaguar alone, while you have an equation which differentiates both the tiger's and the jaguar's values together at the same time. But differentiating the taiger's and jaguar's values togeher in an equation, there is basically the idea of scaling the jaguar to the size of the tiger defeated since you have two variables and you do a one-dimentional regression which quantifies both the values in parallel. If you assess the functioning of your equation, you could see that this is done in there. Thus, having two pairs variables (varies on diffferentiating) in the equation, i.e., the weight and the bite force of the tiger and the weight and bite force of the jaguar, everything quantified in the equation, which in other words means that you are balancing two different structures with non-proportional values in your equation. This is the reason to take the cube and the cuboid. Now, you cant use two objects of different proportions in the square-cube law.
Now, what you devised was not wrong, but was not correct for this scenario since you are having only the ratio between the weight and the bite force. You simply cant do it with the logic of square-cube law. You dont know how thick is the muscles of jaguar compared to the tiger. So, the relation between an scaling a proportionally-less bulky material to a bulky material which was initiallly smaller, and vice versa will have no relativity equation devised until and unless we know exactly how bulky the material is in comparison. Without having any information regarding this, an equation which deals with the ratio alone will do it, but will not justify the reality. Your equation is not wrong, but it cant be used in the scenario given here. We are simply in lack of data.
The strongest bites in the animal kingdom
