Originally posted by Burning thought
What are you talking about? if you look at any calcluations so far they use velocity squared, were trying to get joules.After finding the mass you;
F in joules=massxvelocity squared. Then from there you can get pounds per square inch.
Joules are a unit of scalar energy measurement. Force is a vector quantity. While 1 J = 1 N·m dimensionally, they are not interchangeable in practice.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
Joules are a measurement of the work done in applying a force, not the force itself! No! God, this is painful.Joules are a unit of scalar energy measurement. Force is a vector quantity. While 1 J = 1 N·m dimensionally, they are not interchangeable in practice.
Then you turn the jouls into PSI to get the actual force per square inch or specific area , so yes "No! God this is painful" 😆
Let's see... to do it your way... and get psi for whatever reason...
J = Pa x m^3
Pa = psi/6894.757
J = (psi/6894.757) x m^3
psi/6894.757 = (m^3)/J
Why the hell would you use Joules to figure out psi? No wonder your math's wrong, you're using it in ways it doesn't know how to work. Clearly your roundabout methods are what's producing the grievously wrong results.
Thoughts?
Originally posted by General Kaliero
Let's see... to do it your way... and get psi for whatever reason...J = Pa x m^3
Pa = psi/6894.757
J = (psi/6894.757) x m^3
psi/6894.757 = (m^3)/J
Why the hell would you use Joules to figure out psi? No wonder your math's wrong, you're using it in ways it doesn't know how to work. Clearly your roundabout methods are what's producing the grievously wrong results.
😆 I like how you claim its my "roundabout method" when its not my method, its screampastes, its like your trying to pander to the general bias towards me without including the others who do the same. Also its not wrong, the calculaton speaks for itself. I have someone in one thread claiming I am following "methods" by other math users and your now apprently implying I am the father of it, what confusion.
J= massxvelocity squared times 0,5. Then all you have to do is divide by 1.3558179483314004 apprently to get the pounds per square foot, then to get PSI its simple. From there, you can turn PSI into MPa, pascals or work out newtons.
Everyone but you says your math is wrong. There's a good chance it's wrong.
m x v^2 x 1/2 = E_t, not J. Translational kinetic energy, not Joules. Joules are how E_t is measured. If you want to use mathematics correctly, you cannot equivocate like that; it simply doesn't work. Which is why everyone but you says your math is wrong.
Stay within the realm of Force, thus:
1 Pa = 1 kg/(m x s^2)
Pa = psi/6894.757
psi derived easily from mass and acceleration, in half the work required of trying to convert to Joules and back.
Oh, and that also shows why you should be using acceleration, instead of using plain old velocity like some cheap chump.
Originally posted by ScreamPaste
Neg. 😐 My method doesn't produce star-core-tanking-Kain.haermm
😆 its the same calc, only using some different numbers. The whole joules to PSI thing was your idea, I can probably find it in my inbox, hell your using joules to newtons in the other thread, alongside Bloodrain. Your method does, your figuires dont because you lowball most of them.
I recall something about gigajoule tanking Link at one point or other 😉
Originally posted by General Kaliero
Everyone but you says your math is wrong. There's a good chance it's wrong.m x v^2 x 1/2 = E_t, not J. Translational kinetic energy, not Joules. Joules are how E_t is measured. If you want to use mathematics correctly, you cannot equivocate like that; it simply doesn't work. Which is why everyone but you says your math is wrong.
Stay within the realm of Force, thus:
1 Pa = 1 kg/(m x s^2)
Pa = psi/6894.757
psi derived easily from mass and acceleration, in half the work required of trying to convert to Joules and back.
Oh, and that also shows why you should be using acceleration, instead of using plain old velocity like some cheap chump.
Well not really, "everyone says" is an appeal to audiance. Logical fallacy 🙂 , they could simply all be ignoring how velocity can change in an equation.
Its the same math everyone uses, so again the old bias joke. Its claimed wrong because its given a large figuire when used correctly.
Kinetic energy, which multiplied by that figuire gives joules. As I said.
Well if its easier then thats all good and well, but it does not break the older calculation. Your just changing the units to a different set.
Originally posted by ScreamPaste
BT thinks Kain is durable enough to survive the pressure at the core of a star. 131
16x the pressure.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Well not really, "everyone says" is an appeal to audiance. Logical fallacy 🙂 , they could simply all be ignoring how velocity can change in an equation.Its the same math everyone uses, so again the old bias joke. Its claimed wrong because its given a large figuire when used correctly.
Kinetic energy, which multiplied by that figuire gives joules. As I said.
Well if its easier then thats all good and well, but it does not break the older calculation. Your just changing the units to a different set.
You're the one ignoring change in velocity, by using velocity as opposed to acceleration.
Kinetic energy is not multiplied into Joules. Kinetic energy is measured in Joules. Joules are how you measure energy.
As any professional mathematician will tell you, always use the simplest equations applicable, as the simpler the equation is, the less likely you are to make a mistake.
If you are that sure of your math, run the numbers with both methods. If you're doing it correctly you'll get the same result.
its the same calc, only using some different numbers. The whole joules to PSI thing was your idea, I can probably find it in my inbox, hell your using joules to newtons in the other thread, alongside Bloodrain. Your method does, your figuires dont because you lowball most of them.That's funny, since you never show your work, and everyone agrees your math is wrong. We sure are using the same formula! /Sarcasm.I recall something about gigajoule tanking Link at one point or other
Do you remember the last time I did calcs in a Link thread? Lloyd Irving thread, pascals. Go look.
Check Bowser v.s. Kain, I used N while deriving pressure. :>
Originally posted by General Kaliero
No no no, silly BT.You're the one ignoring change in velocity, by using velocity as opposed to acceleration.
Kinetic energy is not multiplied into Joules. Kinetic energy is measured in Joules. Joules are how you measure energy.
As any professional mathematician will tell you, always use the simplest equations applicable, as the simpler the equation is, the less likely you are to make a mistake.
If you are that sure of your math, run the numbers with both methods. If you're doing it correctly you'll get the same result.
Thats how you get the energy, mxv squared as I have shown. Give a mock calculation please, of how your acceleration figuires are different to mxv squared.
I will run the numbers through both methods, but at the moment I dont see how your method is different, other than you claiming acceleration over velocity. So, mock mathmatical formulae please, lets say 300 tons, 2 meters a second.
Originally posted by ScreamPaste
That's funny, since you never show your work, and everyone agrees your math is wrong. We sure are using the same formula! /Sarcasm.Do you remember the last time I did calcs in a Link thread? Lloyd Irving thread, pascals. Go look.
Check Bowser v.s. Kain, I used N while deriving pressure. :>
Never? its all over the place, and their argueing different things, GK is argueing against the old formula I got from you, your claiming acceleration/velocity being increased does not increase force.
I doubt I even had a look in that thread, I just remeber the whole PSI and joules formula and gigajoule link.
Never? its all over the place, and their argueing different things, GK is argueing against the old formula I got from you, your claiming acceleration/velocity being increased does not increase force.I doubt I even had a look in that thread, I just remeber the whole PSI and joules formula and gigajoule link.
Post it for all the clever math buffs in here to see. :3
The old formula you've grossly mutated/misused/misunderstood/murdered?
and gigajoule link.This is accurate, not sure what your issue is here.
Long story short: Don't attempt to displace your failures on me, I tried to help you once, about a year ago? It didn't take.