WildFact
›
General Section
›
Debate and Discussion about Wild Animals
The strongest bites in the animal kingdom
The strongest bites in the animal kingdom
|
The strongest bites in the animal kingdom
|
@LonePredator
OMG! Brother, my intention was simple and clear. I dont get why would you not understand the simple point even after trying my best to make you understand the same thing multiple times. (04-28-2022, 01:22 PM)LonePredator Wrote: Now, 4/3= 1.3333 and when it is squared, that will give you 1.333^2 = 1.7777 1. Now, look at what you did. Yeah, I am saying about your old method. I am saying about the misinterpretation you did. 4/3 is absolutely allright! I didnt say anything against that. Please understand! Now, how exactly did you get 4/3? This is how you got: tiger bite force * 3/4= jaguar bite force , In the next step, tiger bite force = 4/3* jaguar bite force. This is how you got the 4/3 What is this 4/3 in actual? It is the function of tiger. You would get the value of tiger, not that of jaguars while you use 4/3. To get the value of jaguar, you must use 3/4 since it is the function of jaguar. You interchanged the function. You applied the tigers function in the equation to get the jaguars value. How can this be done? You get the tigers value if you apply the tigers function, which is the 4/3. After calculating with 4/3, the sentence you made was this: " Which means even at same mass, the Jaguar would still have only 88% of the bite force of a Tiger" But, since you calculated with the tiger's function, the 4/3, you must have written as below: " Which means even at same mass, the Tiger would still have only 88% of the bite force of a Jaguar" Else, to use your same sentence, you must have calculated with the function of jaguar, the 3/4 and showuld have made necessary changes you get by doing the calculation with 3/4. This is the mistake I am trying to convey to you from the beginning. Hope you got it atleast by now! Now, look at what you wrote in your post recently, below! (05-15-2022, 11:50 AM)LonePredator Wrote: I calculated the RELATIVE value of the Tiger’s bite to the Jaguar’s bite ON PURPOSE Exactly! You calculated the relative value of the tiger's bite to the jaguar's bite. Now, you yourself are saying so, while you said it was the relative value of jaguar to that of tiger in your old post. The sentences in both of your posts are contradicting each other. Hoping that atleast by now you get the mistake that I am trying to point out. (05-15-2022, 11:50 AM)LonePredator Wrote: And the next thing, you claimed linear scaling. WHEN did I say I was doing linear scaling? I’m NOT scaling the Jaguar to the same LENGTH as the Tiger, I’m scaling the Jaguar to the same MASS as the Tiger and mass is NOT linear in relation to length, mass is cubic since it’s directly proportional to the three dimensional volume (but you are assuming a linear relation for some reason and I don’t know why) 2. Awesome! Where exactly did I do the lienar sacling? Or where did I do something relative to scaling the Jaguar to the same LENGTH as the Tiger? My friend, I scaled everything based on the volume. i.e., mass. Did I scale anything in relation to its length? None of the scaling was relative to the length, but was to the volume/mass. I write it down in the simplest way possible and I dont get how you arent able to perceive things in the way it is said. (05-15-2022, 11:50 AM)LonePredator Wrote: And your talk about a complex 3d shape. No! It doesn’t matter because when you scale up a Jaguar the Jaguar would still have the same shape. A cube scaled to a different size will still be a cube while a Jaguar scaled would still be a Jaguar and still have the same proportions as before (only hypothetically of course as every individual Jaguar has different proportions) 3. The above one confirms that you didnt understand anything. Yes, its true that the jaguar scaled up or down will have no difference in the composition. But are you sure about the composition of the tiger? So you think that the composition, structural dimentions, and everything are same between the jaguar and tiger. You scale the surface area and body mass alone to the equal, and you dont bother about making the composition the same. Is this even right? It cant be done that way since the composition (muscle mass/ density) of the tiger is different to that of the jaguars'. You cant equate the mass surface area alone and assume the composition too to be equalised. There are a dozen of parametres apart from body mass and surface area to consider in the equation. No, you didnt get what I mean even this time and you are gonna come again saying the same. Brother, please take some time and think on it. I said about the complexities which will arise when comparing two different structures of different compositions and ratios. This was the reason I took the cube and cuboid to signify the difference in the compsition in the first place. (05-15-2022, 11:50 AM)LonePredator Wrote: And it’s VERY OBVIOUS that a graph of a cubic value against a linear value will NOT produce a straight slope, that’s pretty obvious and everybody already knows that. That’s not really some new knowledge. Why did you assume that I was assuming a linear relation between surface area and volume/mass (which I never did)? 4. Agin?! Linear value? What is this linear value? Its a 2-dimentional value, the surface area. You did the same. You took the surface area and the mass. Even I took the surface area and the volume as mass since mass is a direct the consequence of volume and density. And in this case, this goes right in gell with your hypothesis of both the objects being of the same densities. Just the exact same relation. If you are saying about differentiating the values, then I did it to show the unpredictability of the change in surface area to change in volume/ mass/ density. I differed the volume/ mass of the cuboid and showed the differential value, not the difference. The diffrerence isnt the point here. You cant form a universal equation which differentiates the mass-surface area relation between any object. You may be able to do it for a specific object, not for any and every object, just like the case with the jaguar and the tiger. (05-15-2022, 12:17 PM)LonePredator Wrote: And THIS IS IMPORTANT. Your comparison between the cube and cuboid of equal volume proves that you do not understand the difference between ‘equal to’ and ‘proportional to’. Do you understand the difference between proportional and equal? 5. This in turn proves that you think that the jaguar and tigers are having the muscles with same proportions/ densities. This was the very sole reason for me to take the cube and the cuboid, my friend! I very well do understand the difference between 'equal' and 'proportional'. The whole point of my comparison was to say that you dont get anything with such an equation while the objects in comparison are of two different dimentions/ proportions/ densities. This is similar to that in s.no.3. (05-15-2022, 12:17 PM)LonePredator Wrote: Next, you are also for some reason assuming that the ratio of growth in volume and ratio in growth of surface area should be same as per my method BUT IT IS NOT AND I NEVER SAID IT IS. 6. Oh my god! Is that what you could understand? I am fearing that all my effort is going in vain since what you are perceiving is not even in the first degree of what I meant to say. We can talk only to people who can understand things in the way its is, right? I am giving you a totally different thing, and what you reply to me with is completely out of the cosmos. The gorwth of surface area and volume was to convey to you that they are unpredictable. That is, we cant find the surface area of an object if the volume is given for the other, and vice versa, if the proportions of the two object arent the same. You cant make a univerasl equation which is compliant for relation between all the various structures. I have to repat the same thing again and again. (05-15-2022, 12:17 PM)LonePredator Wrote: You first need to understand that mass varies cubically with one dimensional values while surface area varies squarely with one dimensional values. That is basic level physics. 7. This is where the root of your mistake is. Where does the square-cube realtion apply? Does it apply on two objects with different proportions? Asking since you equated both of the objects with same mass and same proportions while they were both not. This is why I took a cube and cuboid to represent the difference. And I did scale it isometrically so that both the cube and cuboid had the same volume (mass), like we would like to scale the tiger down to the same mass without changing the individual proportions. The whole point of doing that was not for abiding by your equation, but was to point out the basic mistake there. Do you know something? While you assume both the tiger and jaguar have the same proportions and compositions of muscles, you defeat the whole purpose of the comparison. If that was the case, then both would proportionally have the same bite. Then why the comparison at the first place? The variance in the bite if scaled proportionally is itself because of the difference in proportions, dimentiaons, and the densities. Why would you even scale if you know that the composition, dimensions and everything are the same? (05-15-2022, 12:17 PM)LonePredator Wrote: Mass of bigger cube/mass of smaller cube ^ 1/2 8. Yes, you are right. Let me correct the mistake. Let me correct and check if it abides by your method. Let me follow your exact method line by line now. 200kg /100kg = 2 -->similarly, 3 cubic uints/ 1 cubic unit = 3 cubic unit. (mass is the consequence of volume and density [M = Vd], thus equating mass as per your hypothesis) Now we must do a cube root of 2 and we get 1.2599 (Lets call this number the Tiger’s bodymass score in relation to Jaguar) -->similarly, Now we must do a cube root of 3 and we get 1.4422 (Lets call this number the cuboid B's mass score in relation to cube A) Now, 1000/750 = 1.333 Now we must do a square root of this and we will get 1.1547 (let’s call this one the Tiger’s bite force score) -->similarly, Now, 14/6 = 2.3333 Now we must do a square root of this and we will get 1.5275 (let’s call this one the cuboid B’s bite force [surface area] score) Now these two ‘scores’ can be compared linearly so... 1.1547/1.2599 = .9165 .9165 x 100 = 91.65 This means that when scaled to the same size, the bite force of the Tiger would still be only 91.65 % that of the Jaguar (without any allometric variations) -->similarly, Now these two ‘scores’ can be compared linearly so... 1.5275/1.4422 = 1.0591 1.0591 x 100 = 105.91 This means that when scaled to the same size, the surface area (bite force) of the cuboid B would be 105.91% that of the cube A (without any allometric variations) ,which again is absolutely wrong. As per the precise calculations, the result is that cuboid B will be 112.17% that of the cube A (with precise isometric variations) This says that the equation of yours only works for the two structures that are of the same composition, dimentiaons, and everything, and not for structures which vary in composition, dimentions, etc. Do you know something? While you assume both the tiger and jaguar have the same proportions and compositions of muscles, you defeat the whole purpose of the comparison. If that was the case, then both would proportionally have the same bite. Then why the comparison at the first place? The variance in the bite if scaled proportionally is itself because of the difference in proportions, dimentiaons, and the densities. Are you aware of the bfq equation? They dont take the exact square and cube roots, instead they use precise numbers to scale them with parametres as log of body mass, etc... You cant just like that get off with square root and cube root like you do it for two things with exact same proportions (which is not the case with jaguars and tigers). Why would you even scale if you know that the composition, dimensions and everything are the same? We cant simply assume such things just like that. Its for sure that the composiyion, dimentions and the very structure isnt the same between the jaguar and tiger. Thus, you can form equations only after taking in consideration all the carying factors, just exclusively for the comparison between the jaguar and tiger. Otherwise, its wrong. Hope you understand. Thanks, Wrapp. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |