Originally posted by ScreamPaste
Post it for all the clever math buffs in here to see. :3The old formula you've grossly mutated/misused/misunderstood/murdered?
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.
Its in the LoK thread, and its not misued or mutated at all, thats actually impossible to do, its the same one BR just used in the other thread as well.
😆 accurate, If I looked bakc i am sure the whole gigajoule link calc came from the same scaffolding/formula as my calculation. Infact, you could probably get silly figuires, far worse ones infact from gigajoule link.
Infact, you could probably get silly figuires, far worse ones infact from gigajoule linkThat seems off, since I didn't
Because I did my math properly, I didn't come out with a Link that could survive even planetary core pressure, let alone a star. haermm For all your accusations of me wanking or exaggerating numbers for Link, it's kind of ironic how things turned out, hm?
Originally posted by ScreamPaste
That seems off, since [b]I didn'tBecause I did my math properly, I didn't come out with a Link that could survive even planetary core pressure, let alone a star. haermm For all your accusations of me wanking or exaggerating numbers for Link, it's kind of ironic how things turned out, hm? [/B]
Well it still is wanking and exageration, only I use real figuires and scenes, your claim things like lightning link and gigajoule durability link from daft things that you invent along the way. Although it does not stop you from still claiming it as true, just like a few people disagreeing with me wont stop me.
Difference is, they cannot argue against it really.
Assuming ton = US "short" ton
F = ma
F = 300 ton x (2m/s^2)
F = 300 (907.18474) x (2m/s^2)
F = 272155.422 kg x (2m/s^2)
F = 544310.844 Newtons
Now for your way... as well as I can understand it?
E_t = 1/2 x m x v^2
E_t = 1/2 x 300 ton x (2m/s)^2
E_t = 1/2 x 272155.422 kg x (4m^2/s^2)
E_t = 544310.844 J
Converting Joules into Pa x m^3 because well it seems the easiest way for this unnecessary conversion:
544310.844 Pa x m^3
544310.844 (psi/6894.757) x m^3
78.9456(...) psi x m^3
...which is a nonsensical dead end. What?
(and as before, remember that J = N x m, so the result of E_t is a false equivocation, not actually equal to the other answer)
Originally posted by General Kaliero
Assuming ton = US "short" ton
F = maF = 300 ton x (2m/s^2)
F = 300 (907.18474) x (2m/s^2)
F = 272155.422 kg x (2m/s^2)
F = 544310.844 Newtons
Now for your way... as well as I can understand it?
E_t = 1/2 x m x v^2
E_t = 1/2 x 300 ton x (2m/s)^2
E_t = 1/2 x 272155.422 kg x (4m^2/s^2)
E_t = 544310.844 J
Converting Joules into Pa x m^3 because well it seems the easiest way for this unnecessary conversion:
544310.844 Pa x m^3
544310.844 (psi/6894.757) x m^3
78.9456(...) psi x m^3
...which is a nonsensical dead end. What?
(and as before, remember that J = N x m, so the result of E_t is a false equivocation, not actually equal to the other answer)
So how do you get pounds per square inch from your figuire? If I want to find out force provided over an area from this, how do you change it to pound force?
As shown below;
Originally posted by BloodRainJoules;
Joules = (Mass*Velocity2)/ 2
= (272,155.422kg*1.4m/s^2)/ 2
= (272,155.422*2)/ 2 [Velocity is 2 due to some issue I can't recall so I upped it... may get back to that]
= 272,155.422 Joules
You can get the joules quite easily, from there you can turn jouls into foot pound force on any scientific calculator. Straight away you can get how many pounds per square inch, or square foot of force. Yours seems more complicated, although tbh I dont yet understand your formula.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
544310.844 Newtons per meter is equal to 78.9456 psi.Your way gets 78.9456 psi [b]x m^3
, which is, as I said, nonsensical.And unequal, which shows that whatever personal interpretation of others' methods you are using, it is wrong. [/B]
I think your going the wrong way here. 78 PSI, or 5 tons per foot force does not even make sense, because 5 tons would not move 300, not even close. Were talking about a guy pulling up 300 tons over 2 meters and pushing it over in a second yet your calculation seems to give only 5 tons square foot force.
Also I dont understand why your somehow taking a calculation of volume there?
😆 I like how your constantly trying to troll me with the whole "personal interpretation" nonsense despite having me quoting someone else using the formula i have been using. I understand your trying to belittle me but you could probably think of a more clever way.
Your claim is roughly 5 tons of force lifted up and pushed over 300 tons in a second.
Compared to my formula, or even Bloodrains calc using the same formula (I dsagree with some numbers, but the formula is the same) His numbers near about 100 tons per square foot force.
1 Newton per meter squared is equal to 0.00014503773773 psi.
Therefore 544310.844 Newtons per meter squared is equal to 78.9456 psi.
I've used nothing but standard equations for determining Force.
Your version (if I've understood it correctly) results in 78.9456 psi x m^3. So I should be the one asking you why your equation leaves extra terms, which shouldn't happen in math.
Let's see your version of the maths, eh?
Originally posted by General Kaliero
1 Newton per meter squared is equal to 0.00014503773773 psi.Therefore 544310.844 Newtons per meter squared is equal to 78.9456 psi.
I've used nothing but standard equations for Force.
Your version (if I've understood it correctly) results in 78.9456 psi x m^3. So I should be the one asking you why your equation leaves extra terms, which shouldn't happen in math.
Let's see your version of the maths, eh?
Why would it be multiplied by meters cubed? The equation does not leave extra terms as shown by Bloodrains but here;
mass= 728696.466 kilogramsSpeed= 4 meters over 0.4 seconds
velocity= 4 divided by 0.4= 10
Velocity squared= 100
Multiply squared velocity with Mass= 728696.466 x 100
Kinetic energy= 72869646.6 x 0.5= 36434823.3 joule
36434823.3 / 1.3558179483314004 = Pounds per square foot
Pounds per square foot of force= 26872946.581685386240108122780119 (13 436.4733 tons)
Pounds per square inch (PSI)= 186617.68459503740444519529708416 (93.3088423tons)
What extra terms? You can turn PSi to pascals from there if you want on again, any scientific calculator.
mass= 272235.422Speed= 4 meters over 1 seconds
velocity= 4 divided by 1= 4
Velocity squared= 16
Multiply squared velocity with Mass= 272235.422 x 16
Kinetic energy= 4355766.752 x 0.5= 2177883.376 joule
2177883.376 / 1.3558179483314004 = Pounds per square foot
Pounds per square foot of force= 1606324.3436777866507306658200642 (803.162172 tonnes)
Pounds per square inch (PSI)= 11155.030164429073963407401528224 (5.57751508 tonnes)
Closer to relevence of our example above.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
Well, formula is wrong, obviously, as it produces a different result from basic Force formulas.And since it's so much higher, I think we know where you got your erroneous tanking-the-sun's-core claim.
I think you must have messed up the force formula then. 5 tons, just off hand cannot move 300 tons.
Well you cannot prove its erroneous any more than you can his. Although thats not an argument against the formula, I can see your backing out.
They're Newtonian formulas how can I mess them up 😮
F = ma is about as basic as it gets. All you do is plug in values.
1 ton = 907.1847 kg
So it's left to simple multiplication, and the resulting terms kg x (m/s^2) equal N.
The math is simple and even you should be able to check it. Where are your perceived errors?