Originally posted by Astner
I didn't forget the density, but rather than separating density from volume which is completely unnecessary for a calculation when the density is a scalar. I kept it as mass.Tell me, what's wrong with this formula.
a represents the linear dimension of any given parameter (i.e. circumference, length, width, breadth, curve, etc.) [b]prior
the volume transformation.b represents the linear dimension of any given parameter (i.e. circumference, length, width, breadth, curve, etc.) after the volume transformation.
m represents the mass before the volume transformation.
M represents the mass after the volume transformation.
I proved to you that this works on, cubes, cuboid and spheres. You might test any other fix body, but as long as they have the same density and shape it will be accurate.[/B]
Bla bla bla.
We've gotten past this sooooo very long ago.
Originally posted by Astner
While standing corrected on the matter of that they do exist, you were wrong regarding their complexity and versatility.I quote:
"A physics engine is computer software that provides an approximate simulation of certain simple physical systems, such as rigid body dynamics (including collision detection), soft body dynamics, and fluid dynamics, of [b]use in the domains of computer graphics, video games and film.
"It's a simple program used for simple problems. You wouldn't rely on the same program you use to enhance the realism of computer generated effects that you would creating an airplane.
So there's been a week now, did you make an attempt on the visual calculations you promised or was it all bullshit as I predicted?[/B]
Wait, so you were wrong, but now you are claiming that they are SIMPLER than what I referred to? You know, the exact OPPOSITE of what you should have concluded? They are far more complex than the very simple "description" I gave them.
Cut it out. That's very annoying.
You're crossing into the territory of trolling, now.
Originally posted by Astner
That was what you were talking about, why else would you've responded. In the manner you did?There are no gramamtical errors, no spelling errors or any other writing errors one could think of.
facepalm
I said:
"Like I said, earlier, though, the sword has to be made from a material other than steel....cause it's too big to actually use without it bending/breaking. teehee "
You said in reply:
"So would it if it was made of any other material too, even graphene wouldn't keep it together."
To which I replied:
"English, please. 🙂 "
Now, stop right there...why do I think I included a smart*ss smiley face?
Could it have been the atrocious amgibugous pronoun references?
Or is it what you thought it was: me not understanding how graphene even made sense in that sentence when, in context, it would make perfect sense even to an idiot.
You assumed the latter so you would have an excuse to pontificate, yet again, because you're strill trying to save "face" to a bunch of teenage boys in an anime/manga thread.
Also, if I REALLY wanted to get pedantic instead of making a joke about your overuse of "it", I would have said something like: "Right, cause sheets of carbon atoms can be made into gigantic swords. 😐 " Instead, I figured I'd make a joke about your poor use of pronouns as that sh*t gets annoying as hell and I was tired of arguing about why you're wrong and miss everything.
Originally posted by Astner
Saving my ego from empty assaults? I've told you, once you find a mathematical error in my calculations I'll address them accurately.You're wrong, plain and simple. You haven't mentioned one flaw in the formula above, you even choose to ignore one of my responses.
For all the miserable attempts you've made I've addressed all of them with no exceptions. Because unlike you I'm more interested in the truth than being right. That's also why I've made 2 concessions, and you have yet to make one. Even though you were directly disproved that the formula above only applies to perfect cubes.
1. You know you love me.
2. I've pointed out some errors already.
3. I was trying to be cool about stuff but you got all butthurt over a very minor passing comment I made about your atrocious math.
4. ???
5. Profit.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Bla bla bla.We've gotten past this sooooo very long ago.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Wait, so you were wrong, but now you are claiming that they are SIMPLER than what I referred to? You know, the exact OPPOSITE of what you should have concluded? They are far more complex than the very simple "description" I gave them.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Cut it out. That's very annoying
Mainly because the programs you refer to aren't used for calculating the volume of objects of "unknown" size.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I said:"Like I said, earlier, though, the sword has to be made from a material other than steel....cause it's too big to actually use without it bending/breaking. teehee "
You said in reply:
"So would it if it was made of any other material too, even graphene wouldn't keep it together."
To which I replied:
"English, please. 🙂 "
Now, stop right there...why do I think I included a smart*ss smiley face?
Could it have been the atrocious amgibugous pronoun references?
Or is it what you thought it was: me not understanding how graphene even made sense in that sentence when, in context, it would make perfect sense even to an idiot.
It have relevance due to the fact that it's currently the most durable material.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You assumed the latter so you would have an excuse to pontificate, yet again, because you're strill trying to save "face" to a bunch of teenage boys in an anime/manga thread.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, if I REALLY wanted to get pedantic instead of making a joke about your overuse of "it", I would have said something like: "Right, cause sheets of carbon atoms can be made into gigantic swords. 😐 " Instead, I figured I'd make a joke about your poor use of pronouns as that sh*t gets annoying as hell and I was tired of arguing about why you're wrong and miss everything.
Originally posted by dadudemon
1. You know you love me.
Originally posted by dadudemon
2. I've pointed out some errors already.
Please point out one mathematical body to which this formula doesn't apply. As mentioned before, there is none.
Originally posted by dadudemon
3. I was trying to be cool about stuff but you got all butthurt over a very minor passing comment I made about your atrocious math.
Originally posted by dadudemon
5. Profit.
Originally posted by Astner
Thank you for your insightful and elaborate response.
Thank you for wasting time, yet again. *eats some food*
Originally posted by Astner
Ironically that's not what the link you provided me with said. The programs you refer to are mainly used to induce a level of realism in games and movies. They are not used as tools for optimizing the shape of aircrafts, whereas MATLAB--among other things--is.
IS that ironic? IS it? dur
So, tell me, dude, how does optimizing the shapes of aircrafts relate to topic? (You know, making objects in 3 dimensions and getting a volumetric measure for that object...assigning it density and the environment a gravity constant. Wait, what? You missed the point again and now are arguing against stuff that doesn't even exist? PLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE stop wasting my time! 🙁 )
Originally posted by Astner
You promised us calculation results, results you haven't and most likely won't provide.
I already calculated it. I'll give you a hint: it starts with a 9.
But, like I said, the calculation is useless due to the object NOT being made out of hardened steel.
Originally posted by Astner
Mainly because the programs you refer to aren't used for calculating the volume of objects of "unknown" size.
You're right, it gives you a read out on the right, based on this little "units" of area, (or wherever you want to throw you statistics window while building 3D objects. Imagine that: back to Archimedes, like I effin' said. WEEEEEE!)
Originally posted by Astner
You think graphene is a ambiguous reference? It's the most basic material in the field of nanotechnology, to which even highschool students are introduced to.It have relevance due to the fact that it's currently the most durable material.
Good GOD man! I very very explicitly told you what the damn problem was.
"...ambiguous pronoun reference" refers to what?
"...overuse of 'it'" refers to what?
Tell me the truth, I'll be cool about it, I swear: are you autistic? 100% honest, I will be waaaaaaay nicer to you if you are autistic.
Originally posted by Astner
If I were to "save my face" why didn't I respond earlier? Why would I lets your posts ridiculing me taint my reputation for a week? Perhaps because I'm not that interested in my Internet reputation, Endless Mike even postulated that I sought to be infamous.
The length of time between posts means nothing, only that you continue to post replies. I thought this thread was done with you wasting my time. *farts*
Originally posted by Astner
I wouldn't call paraphrasing Wikipedia pedantic. Mathematically being able to explain the molecular structure's behavior on a subatomic level would be though.
PAH! (That's a really funny pun, if you can get it.) I'm the last person you should accuse of being an internet tiger...
I was actually considering carbon-nano-tubes as a viable option, but making one into a blade is really silly: I have no idea how that would work, but you could make a rope out of dat shit, fo sho. I still don't see how graphene would be even remotely usable because it's a damn sheet.
Originally posted by Astner
Yeah 😮
Teehee
Originally posted by Astner
No you didn't, the fact that this entire reply doesn't contain one shred of mathematical rebuttal proves your capabilities.Please point out one mathematical body to which this formula doesn't apply. As mentioned before, there is none.
You see, that's where the problem lies: you DID make mathematical errors...and we have LOOOOOOOONG been over the formula (remember me throwing it back at you in an expanded form to see if you would argue against it, which you did?)
Originally posted by Astner
Yes, of course.
Hey, this wouldn't have gotten this far had you just corrected your math mistakes and your path to find mass.
Originally posted by Astner
Nonsensical to the given response.
It's an internet meme, dude.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Thank you for wasting time, yet again. *eats some food*
You're not attempting to make an argument, the post I'm replying to is nothing short of an attempt to end this topic granting you the final reply.
Originally posted by dadudemon
So, tell me, dude, how does optimizing the shapes of aircrafts relate to topic?
Originally posted by dadudemon
I already calculated it. I'll give you a hint: it starts with a 9.
Originally posted by dadudemon
But, like I said, the calculation is useless due to the object NOT being made out of hardened steel.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You're right, it gives you a read out on the right, based on this little "units" of area, (or wherever you want to throw you statistics window while building 3D objects. Imagine that: back to Archimedes, like I effin' said. WEEEEEE!)
Originally posted by dadudemon
Tell me the truth, I'll be cool about it, I swear: are you autistic? 100% honest, I will be waaaaaaay nicer to you if you are autistic.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The length of time between posts means nothing, only that you continue to post replies.
Aside from being a fallacious argument, it by itself isn't true. If this topic had such an impact on me, then I would've responded earlier.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I was actually considering carbon-nano-tubes as a viable option, but making one into a blade is really silly: I have no idea how that would work, but you could make a rope out of dat shit, fo sho.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I still don't see how graphene would be even remotely usable because it's a damn sheet.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You see, that's where the problem lies: you DID make mathematical errors...and we have LOOOOOOOONG been over the formula
Originally posted by dadudemon
(remember me throwing it back at you in an expanded form to see if you would argue against it, which you did?)
Originally posted by dadudemon
Hey, this wouldn't have gotten this far had you just corrected your math mistakes and your path to find mass.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It's an internet meme, dude.
Originally posted by King Kandy
And the irony of this statement... goes right over your head.
It's not that I don't know what I'm talking about, it's that you don't know what I'm talking about.
Originally posted by Astner
It wouldn't have gotten that far if you, from scratch, realized that I applied the same density to both of the katana allowing me to make use of the distributivity and treat mass as volume times density.
And if you follow the debate in detail you'd also take notice of my previous post.
Originally posted by Astner
I didn't forget the density, but rather than separating density from volume which is completely unnecessary for a calculation when the density is a scalar. I kept it as mass.
I've been parroting this matter since the debate started at page 3, in this thread.
Originally posted by dadudemon
First, find the density of the handle. Then, find the density of the metal. Then, find the volume of the handle and complete blade.
Originally posted by Astner
Completely unnecessary and would mean that we would have to resort to further estimations that would lower the accuracy of the results.
Originally posted by Astner
One would think it'd be common sense to read through a reply before taking a segment of it out of context.It's not that I don't know what I'm talking about, it's that you don't know what I'm talking about.
Here I explicitly address a density related factor, i.e. mass.
And if you follow the debate in detail you'd also take notice of my previous post.
Once again, addressing the same logical fallacy thrown at me.
I've been parroting this matter since the debate started at page 3, in this thread.
As can be seen, I never made any calculations without any density related factors.
And the part of that line I thought was amusing... also went right over your head.
You didn't expect me to take your Appeal to Ridicule fallacy seriously did you?
The fact that you argue using logical fallacies proves your inability to debate properly.
Originally posted by King Kandy
If you thought my point was that you dropped the density, then you didn't get what I was trying to say.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Still not my point.
Allow me to recite the, to you, enigmatic description of the fallacy.
"X is amusing, absurd. Therefore it is false.
Mock the other person's claim and argument. Make fun of it. Get people to laugh at it.
Alternatively, mock the alternatives that they might choose, giving them only one option that you have not mocked."