The strongest bites in the animal kingdom

[Wrapp]

I dont know how to make LonePredator understand things. Need someones' help to teach LonePredator the logic behind the equation he had put.

(05-15-2022, 07:49 PM)LonePredator Wrote: I don’t know if you’re doing this on purpose or you’re just that clueless to begin with.

I did calculate the relative bite force of the Tiger to the Jaguar which is 0.9165x (assuming x is the Jaguar’s bite, so how’s that wrong according to you? This is what we were supposed to calculate all along)

According to you, calculating the relative value of Tiger’s bite to the Jaguar’s bite is different than calculating the relative value of the Jaguar’s bite to the Tiger? Those are two different resulting according to you? Then I’m sorry but you need to study basic high school mathematics.

I am not at all being arrogant or argueing for nothing. Are you feeling so? If so, I have nothing to say more on that.

I am surprised that you still are so adament and not even taking an effort to open your eyes and look at it! You still stay with my "results on two different perceptions" I made to eliminate any possible excuses from you.

The two perceptions arent at all the case.  Just forget about the two results of the "perception" thing.


Now, just look at the logic behind your old calculation.
Now, please "educate" me step by step on what you did on your previous equation. i.e, the meaning of the factors you took and all. Please do it! Then I can guide you on where you are going wrong. Until then, I have realised that its impossible to make you understand things.
Its simple maths, my frend! Or just leaving the ego behind and looking at your equation again will do it.

(05-15-2022, 07:49 PM)LonePredator Wrote: And WHEN did I say that I assumed both Jaguars and Tigers have the same structure? Did you even understand a fraction of what I said? It’s COMMON SENSE but you seem to lack that in regard to this. I said that the bigger Jaguar would still have the same structure as the smaller Jaguar. THAT is what I said but I think you are purposefully being deceitful and misinterpreting all that I said.

Oh! Its you who still didnt get what I said. Why did you even say that? For you to scale the tiger to the jaguar's weight expecting the surface area to decrease isometrically when doen with the square and the cube root, its ridiculous! This is the 5th or sixth time I am saying the same thing to you.

Now, where does the square-cube rule apply? It applies between two exactly similarly-proportioned structures. Is that the case with the tiger and the jaguar, that they have the same proportions? You say that you didnt say the tiger's and jaguars have the same structure, but you use the logic that can be used only for two objects having same proportional structure. You arent gonna Omg! I dont even know how to make you understand! This is the simplest way a human can explain things. If you dont understand, I have no comments. Its like a gone case!

(05-15-2022, 07:49 PM)LonePredator Wrote: It’s COMMON SENSE but you seem to lack that in regard to this

It would be kind if you be a bit polite!

(05-15-2022, 07:51 PM)LonePredator Wrote: I don’t intend to be harsh but you have absolutely NO CLUE what you’re talking about, the BFQ calculation is done by taking in count the regression of allometric variations with mass but we’re not going to allometrically change a Jaguar, we’re doing it isometrically. You are clearly unable to comprehend the difference between isometric equations and allometric equations because if you did, you would’ve never said this.

Oh, so you do isometry between two different structures with square root and cube root, isnt it? You will get answer to this if you ask to yourself whether you may be able to apply the Galilio's law when scaling the tiger and jaguar. You are not separately scaling the jaguar isometrically to the weight of tiger and then comparing their bie forces. You arent doing that. And you cant do that since you dont have the dimentions in your hand other than just a ratio between the bite forces. We cant do that!

(05-15-2022, 08:11 PM)LonePredator Wrote: You also do not know what square cube law is and you are trying to prove the square cube law wrong. If two objects are of the exact same shape and proportions (the bigger and smaller Jaguar) then the square cube law applies to it but you are saying it’s wrong? Do you understand what you are talking about?

(05-15-2022, 08:11 PM)LonePredator Wrote: Before going any further, you tell me the difference between proportional and equal. Do you understand the difference between proportionality and equality? YOU DO NOT because I saw your example of cube and cuboid of same volume and that example of yours PROVES that you don’t understand the basic difference between proportionality and equality.

You are getting it wrong. You think I dont know the difference between proportionality and equality? This is the problem with you that you dont get what was meant or try to understand what is done. Although, I got what you meant, but you still didnt.

I get your idea. Its not because I dont understand, but because you dont understand what I mean. Your aim was to isometrically scale the jaguar to the weight of the tiger, and then calculate the difference in bite. Inst that exactly what you meant to do?
Now, This is the important one. Please listen to this properly. I will elaborate your own method.

Now, you are comparing a tiger and a jaguar, which means that you are having two different composions and structures. And, you include the values of both the jaguar and tiger to the equation, isnt it? So, naturally, you are dealing with two different structures with different compositions. Thus was my cube-cuboid example. You arent isometrically scaling the mass of the jaguar alone and then looking at the difference in bite force in your equation, though that was your intent. For that, you need the proper dimentions and density values of both the structures. Only then you can do so as you intended. 
Or else, just elaborate the logic of your equation here step by setep saying out the logic and the reason behind doing each of your steps. While you write down, you wil hopefullyl realise the flaw.

(05-15-2022, 07:49 PM)LonePredator Wrote: And in such a case, we can use simple Galileo’s law to calculate the surface area if we already know the mass (and you are saying Galileo’s square cube law is wrong)

Is that so? I didnt even say that the Galileo's law was wrong. Do you still use Galileo's law even after this in this case? Come on! Reply