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.
- From cube 1 to cube 2, volume increased by 8 times so the surface area increased by 8^2/3 tunes.
- From cube 2 to cube 3, volume increased by 3.375 times so the surface area increased by 3.375^2/3 times
- From cube 3 to cube 4, volume increased by 2.73037 times so the surface area increased by 2.73037^2/3 times.
As long as ANY shape increases in volume proportionally, the same pattern as above will ALWAYS apply. THIS IS WHAT THE SQUARE CUBE LAW IS.
You can verify this BUT PLEASE USE A CALCULATOR. We have already seen that are incapable of making calculations because you took 3 hours and still made such silly calculation mistakes (despite taking the whole 3 hours to do your ‘calculation’)
The same way, when a Jaguar’s volume/mass increases by 2 times, then the surface area/bite force will increase by 2^2/3 times.
Now you need to explain yourself. You said the exact opposite of what the square cube law says and you refuse to accept that you were wrong. SO NOW PROVE YOURSELF. PROVE HOW YOU WERE CORRECT WHEN YOU SAID THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT SQUARE CUBE LAW SAYS
If you did understand this, then it’s possible that you might not even reply anymore because you’re too afraid of admitting that you made such embarrassing mistake which even a high school student would never do. Please go and study high school maths and physics.
Yeah. You are right. I should have done surface area*2^2/3. I am getting the answer for that cuboid by doing it with surface area*2^2/3. Sorry for taking this long.
Thanks,
Wrapp.
Okay but I asked you another question which you avoided yet again for the 6th time in a row. You said the exact opposite of what the definition of square cube law says and you were still claiming that you were right so tell me so tell me how and on what basis you made that claim?