Raikage vs Tsunade

Originally posted by King Kandy
It's not a fallacy, because I am not making an argument based on mockery. I simply presented a concise, logical argument that you didn't understand and in error declared a fallacy.

"X is amusing, absurd. Therefore it is false"

That's the category "The argument went way over your head, I win again" fall under.

Suggesting you've provided me with sufficient information for some vaguely defined position and then act as I don't understand that position is not how you settle a debate, any high school social studies class should have provided you with that much knowledge at least.

If you truly had a valid point you would've clearly defined it. But your inability to debate have led you to think that the only way you'll "win" is by committing logical fallacies.

Holy...

no offense Astner but you are sounding like a soulless automaton...

can't we all just get along...

Originally posted by Astner
Are you compelled reply, regardless whether or not the content is credible or not?

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.

Tsunade grabbed a huge sword and swung it with super strength.

Originally posted by Astner
It refutes your claim of that those physics engines are complex programs applied in the frontiers of science.

It does not. It, with absurd strawman, only "proves" that there are drawing applications that are really complex. (Guess what? You can assign properties to the components of those objects...like volume and density. So, you really just further proved my point that you had no clue what you were talking about, tried to back pedal, tried use a strawman to throw us off topic just to argue about something else, and ended up bringing us back to square (teehee) one which is what I was talking about in the first place. In other words, you were wrong, didn't know what you were talking about, and indirectly admitted I was right while trying to use a logical fallacy. In other words, PWNED!)

So, I need you to quote me where I said that 'those physics engines are complex programs applied in the frontiers of science."

If you're referring to video games physics engines (because that would be the context of the conversation), wouldn't you sh*t yourself if a video game engine was adapted and used in the "frontiers of science?" 😆

http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/213103/unity-game-engine-used-to-solve-crime/

That's just one example that I found in less than 2 seconds of google searching (first hit).

😆

So even your botched and out of context attempt at an argument failed.

So, what have we learned? You didn't know about physics engines, 3D modeling, and using video game physics engines in scientific ways. But, now you do.

Originally posted by Astner
No you didn't calculate it. If that was the case you've would have provided the answer you promised as soon as you made the calculation rather than behave in this childish manner.

I did calculate it. Again, it starts with a 9. I'll give you a second hint: it ends in a number greater than 0.

Do you want another hint?

Also, why do you think I dropped that whole debate to begin with? (Again, this is not a trick question as I have directly indicated why, multiple times.)

Originally posted by Astner
So you calculated the mass of an object without without any density related factors? Do I have to point out to you that this is impossible?

If you actually paid attention, you'd know that we DO have the mass of a bamboo katana as I posted a link to one.

On top of this, all we need to know is average density. Modeling the object can net us a volume and since we have the mass, we can find average density.

Keep in mind, this whole debate started with your horrendous math and formula.

Remember posting this ugly post:

Originally posted by Astner
A regular katana handle is approximately 4 cm, and the length of Gamabuta's katana's handle is a approximately 3/2 of Tsunande's length (or 2 meters).

A reasonable assumption would be that Gamabuta's katana has the same density as a regular katana.

So the formula is basically:

([Length of Gamabuta's katana]/[Length of a regular katana])^3 * [Density of a regular katana] = [Mass of Gamabunta's katana]

(2/.05)^3 * 2 = 250 000 kg (= 250 tons)

So, if you can even muster the ability to admit fault, please do. Just say, "Man, I was horribly wrong. I apologize for dragging this out for so long."

I actually showed you why you were wrong and you STILL didn't admit it.

But, here's another example, because I have time.

Assume rectangular cuboid A with dimensions 2x4x3 cm

Assume density is uniform and density is 2g/cm^3.

Its mass is found as follows:

Find volume:

2*4*3 = 24

Mutiply density by volume to find the mass:

(2g/cm^3)*(24cm^3/1) = 48g

Easy, right?

Now, let's assume rectangular cuboid B, which is congruent to rectangular cuboid A.

It has dimensions 6x12x9

Volume = 648

Mass = 1296 g

Can we figure out the mass of that object from JUST the measure of ONE side only?

Check:

Pretend we only know one side: 6.

Pretend that this is a far more complex geometric figure than a rectangular cuboid and we can't guess the other sides (despite the fact that we really could, quite easily...just humor me, here.)

Let's try your way:

Pretend we only know that Object A masses 48g and has a side measuring 2cm

Pretend we only know that Object B is congruent to Object A and has the same congruent side measuring 6cm.

Let's do it your way:

(6cm/2cm)^3*48g = 432g

Does 432 = 1296?

No.

Does 432g*3 = 1296?

Yup.

So what did we learn? You did NOT get it correct, even after you backpedaled and changed everything up, again.

Do we need to know the density to find it's mass? Nope. Not at all. 🙂 But we had to multiply the result by 3 to get the proper mass...something I am not seeing in your work, anywhere.

What is 3? 😏

Do you want me to show you the proper formula for doing this calculation?

Now, I already showed where your math was wrong on using "density", but instead of admitting where you were wrong, you got angry about the numbers not being realistic for a Katana. I see no need to rehash that as the point still stands.

Is that what you said the first time? Nope. You said this:

Originally posted by Astner
([Length of Gamabuta's katana]/[Length of a regular katana])^3 * [Density of a regular katana] = [Mass of Gamabunta's katana]

(2/.05)^3 * 2 = 250 000 kg (= 250 tons)

Did I criticize your math, very politely, the first time? Yup, I sure did. did you respond with anything other than admitting fault? Yup, you sure did. Should you have admitted fault? Yup. Would our conversation have extended for as long as it did if you would have admitted fault? No, not at all. In fact, I would have been super happy to help you works towards a solution: I would have called you, if necessary, cause I like doing these things.

Originally posted by Astner
So you pretend has you've build a perfect katana by manually adding volume elements...bla bla bla... have.

I didn't pretend anything.

Quote me where I said I used a software to do a calculation on this topic.

And, lol at you pretending that you need to "manually add volume elements". HA! You just draw the figure and look at the volume measure for which it occupies on the right. I clearly stated that in the portion you quoted, already.

But, I did find out from my homie that it is not super accurate as it rounds up based on the "cubes" of space it takes up. To make it more accurate, you'd just have to make the object bigger and use the volume measurement inside the program multiplied by factor each cube represents your unit of measure (such as cm or meter.)

Like you said, that would be less accurate than doing it with a straight relational calculation.

Originally posted by Astner
No, I'm not diagnosed with autism. But then again, this is just another attempt of an Ad Hominem attack to avoid reaching the core of your hollow argument.

No, it is not. It is a way to explain why you seem to miss points, context, and use strawman arguments. Following conversation context is a problem with some forms of autism. It would have made me feel better about our convo and I would probably have felt bad for some of the tone in my posts.

Like I said, I would be completely understanding and nice about it, but it looks like you don't have it, so what now? You're just a poopypants! HA! 😆

Originally posted by Astner
Apparently you suggest that I'm attempting to "save my ego", implying ...bla bla bla...cubes.

You've admitted fault twice, but still fail to admit fault on the real topic: the original reason I responded to you.

Also, it's not hard to admit fault when you've made simple math errors and accidentally called yourself wrong.

Originally posted by Astner
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.

Aside from what I said not being a fallacious "argument" at all, you fail to realize that it doesn't require you to be rabidly obsessed to have to save face.

Responding to defend, period, is the only requirement from my statement. You could be 103 years old, on your deathbed, and if you responded to defend your ego, I would still be correct: You're trying to save your ego.

Originally posted by Astner
Yes, I'm sure you were considering the options of nanotubes without the slightest hint of what graphene was.

You are partially correct.

I just got done writing a paper on the future of computing. It covered mostly memristors and graphene transistors. Would you like to read that paper? 🙂

Also, I did not consider graphene because it is not a material you would use for a blade as far as I can tell. 😬 I’ve read nothing, academic, that shows that it could be used as a big arse blade.

Originally posted by Astner
Orthogonally bounded.

Please show me, here, where it could be made into a blade:

http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/lassp_data/mceuen/homepage/Publications/JVSTB_Pushing_Graphene.pdf

If you can find another academic source that shows that a fabrication of orthogonally bonded polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon sheets can form a blade, I’ll admit fault.

Originally posted by Astner
No you haven't.

What a surprise: a "nuh uhhh!" response.

How about this: yes I have, but you haven't. Nya nya!

Originally posted by Astner
No, I don't recall you doing that. Furthermore that's not a mathematical rebuttal.

I know you don't recall doing that. If you can't remember a conversation from just a few hours prior, why should I assume you'd remember one from a few days ago?

And, if the point of it were to show you how your math was wrong, then that would have been the only problem. The point was to show you that you were talking out of your *ss OR create a nice joke that you and I could laugh at: a win-win for me. 😄

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.

That's not what you did, though, now is it? And is wouldn't be the distribution property, either, it would be simplification of algebraic terms.

Originally posted by Astner
I actually expected a mature response.

I actually expected you to get a joke since we are talking through…you know…the internetz! WEEE!

We wouldn’t have a debate if you would just admit fault. I already know how this could work out for ya and you could pwn me and I would admit fault. I’ve dropped hints throughout my post, so hopefully you pick up on them and say it…admit fault, and we can move on.

BTW, I didn't proofread crap so it may be horrible in places. Forgive meh! 🙁

Edit - Asnter, if you respond to me, only respond to the sword stuff, but none of the stuff that does not directly apply to Tsunade's strength. That other stuff, like graphene, ego, etc., just send me a PM.

Hurr durr, Pencil can't grasp the concept of fiction again.

I would like to thank dadudemon for at least attempting this time.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It does not. It, with absurd strawman, only "proves" that there are drawing applications that are really complex. (Guess what? You can assign properties to the components of those objects...like volume and density. So, you really just further proved my point that you had no clue what you were talking about, tried to back pedal, tried use a strawman to throw us off topic just to argue about something else, and ended up bringing us back to square (teehee) one which is what I was talking about in the first place. In other words, you were wrong, didn't know what you were talking about, and indirectly admitted I was right while trying to use a logical fallacy. In other words, PWNED!)

So, I need you to quote me where I said that 'those physics engines are complex programs applied in the frontiers of science."

If you're referring to video games physics engines (because that would be the context of the conversation), wouldn't you sh*t yourself if a video game engine was adapted and used in the "frontiers of science?" 😆

http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/213103/unity-game-engine-used-to-solve-crime/

That's just one example that I found in less than 2 seconds of google searching (first hit).

😆

So even your botched and out of context attempt at an argument failed.

So, what have we learned? You didn't know about physics engines, 3D modeling, and using video game physics engines in scientific ways. But, now you do.

But granted, physics engines can be applied to crime scenes as well.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I did calculate it. Again, it starts with a 9. I'll give you a second hint: it ends in a number greater than 0.

Do you want another hint?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, why do you think I dropped that whole debate to begin with? (Again, this is not a trick question as I have directly indicated why, multiple times.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you actually paid attention, you'd know that we DO have the mass of a bamboo katana as I posted a link to one.

On top of this, all we need to know is average density. Modeling the object can net us a volume and since we have the mass, we can find average density.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So, if you can even muster the ability to admit fault, please do. Just say, "Man, I was horribly wrong. I apologize for dragging this out for so long."

I actually showed you why you were wrong and you STILL didn't admit it.

But, here's another example, because I have time.

Assume rectangular cuboid A with dimensions 2x4x3 cm

Assume density is uniform and density is 2g/cm^3.

Its mass is found as follows:

Find volume:

2*4*3 = 24

Mutiply density by volume to find the mass:

(2g/cm^3)*(24cm^3/1) = 48g

Easy, right?

Now, let's assume rectangular cuboid B, which is congruent to rectangular cuboid A.

It has dimensions 6x12x9

Volume = 648

Mass = 1296 g

Can we figure out the mass of that object from JUST the measure of ONE side only?

Check:

Pretend we only know one side: 6.

Pretend that this is a far more complex geometric figure than a rectangular cuboid and we can't guess the other sides (despite the fact that we really could, quite easily...just humor me, here.)

Let's try your way:

Pretend we only know that Object A masses 48g and has a side measuring 2cm

Pretend we only know that Object B is congruent to Object A and has the same congruent side measuring 6cm.

Let's do it your way:

(6cm/2cm)^3*48g = 432g

Does 432 = 1296?

No.

Does 432g*3 = 1296?

Yup.

So what did we learn? You did NOT get it correct, even after you backpedaled and changed everything up, again.

(6/2)^3 * 48 = 1296

(3^3 * 48 = 27 * 48 = 1296)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Quote me where I said I used a software to do a calculation on this topic.

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
But, I did find out from my homie that it is not super accurate as it rounds up based on the "cubes" of space it takes up. To make it more accurate, you'd just have to make the object bigger and use the volume measurement inside the program multiplied by factor each cube represents your unit of measure (such as cm or meter.)

In other words, provide the source and explanation for the calculations.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Aside from what I said not being a fallacious "argument" at all, you fail to realize that it doesn't require you to be rabidly obsessed to have to save face.

Responding to defend, period, is the only requirement from my statement. You could be 103 years old, on your deathbed, and if you responded to defend your ego, I would still be correct: You're trying to save your ego.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You are partially correct.

I just got done writing a paper on the future of computing. It covered mostly memristors and graphene transistors. Would you like to read that paper? 🙂

Originally posted by dadudemon
- Asnter, if you respond to me, only respond to the sword stuff, but none of the stuff that does not directly apply to Tsunade's strength. That other stuff, like graphene, ego, etc., just send me a PM.

Originally posted by Jugglenaut
Hurr durr, Pencil can't grasp the concept of fiction again.