Can JL Superman Tank Hulks Leviathan Punch?

Originally posted by h1a8
The punch was less than 50 tons per observation, not calculation. The calculation is for the feat, not the punch.

I never claim what the force of the punch was. I claimed the AVERAGE stopping force of the feat ( which includes the punch, the concrete, the bracing, etc)

>claims the force of the punch.
>claims he never claimed the forced of the punch and tries to disavow it and move the goalposts by claiming "observation not calculation" and "force not punch" even tho no one is gonna fall for that BS.

#h1goalpostmoves

😱

I will no longer reply to anymore posts as it seems that you are already in full move-the-goalposts mode (as I predicted) even before the BZ has started and the more we talk outside of a judged setting, the more you will try. I tossed you a bone just so I can demonstrate to everyone just what sort of person you are.

And thank you, you proved my point quite well.

If you have any balls, go argue your points in the BZ, stand by your own math. I already indicated that the basis of the debate is your math from everything from page 4 of this thread. The judges will decide what you have been trying to argue based on your own statements as we know you will just lie so that you won't have to admit to being wrong.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
>claims the force of the punch.
>claims he never claimed the forced of the punch and tries to disavow it and move the goalposts by claiming "observation not calculation" and "force not punch" even tho no one is gonna fall for that BS.

#h1goalpostmoves

😱

I will no longer reply to anymore posts as it seems that you are already in full move-the-goalposts mode (as I predicted) even before the BZ has started and the more we talk outside of a judged setting, the more you will try. I tossed you a bone just so I can demonstrate to everyone just what sort of person you are.

And thank you, you proved my point quite well.

If you have any balls, go argue your points in the BZ, stand by your own math. I already indicated that the basis of the debate is your math from everything from page 4 of this thread. The judges will decide what you have been trying to argue based on your own statements as we know you will just lie so that you won't have to admit to being wrong.

I said my calculation wasn't for the force of the punch, it was for the feat. The punch itself was under 50tons Imo.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Prove it

I already did.
Nibedicus did too (with his post).

Nibedicus likes to quote people out of context so it appears they are lying or trying to be deceitful. He always knew that my calculations weren't for the punch as I stated the concrete did most of the work in almost every post.

The statement he quoted of me was a personal opinion about the punch (not the feat). There were no calculations involved in that estimate.

Originally posted by h1a8
I already did.
Nibedicus did too (with his post).

At no point have you ever refuted his numbers. You've just been claiming he used the wrong numbers in his equations.

You are not nearly as smart as you think you are.

Originally posted by h1a8
Nibedicus likes to quote people out of context so it appears they are lying or trying to be deceitful. He always knew that my calculations weren't for the punch as I stated the concrete did most of the work in almost every post.

The statement he quoted of me was a personal opinion about the punch (not the feat). There were no calculations involved in that estimate.

People are free to look at the thread and make up their own minds.

I don't think even you believe in the things you say. You just don't wanna admit to your error. I just beat you up so badly, you're just doing this out of spite now.

I feel sorry for you.

Originally posted by Silent Master
At no point have you ever refuted his numbers. You've just been claiming he used the wrong numbers in his equations.

You are not nearly as smart as you think you are.

Lol. The science guy actually was at error (even with his numbers).
I and the professor from the site Nibedicus posted both used the same numbers as the science guy. But me and the professor got the same estimate (0.186). The science guy didn't. He clearly made a mistake somewhere. I don't know where Tbh.

Originally posted by h1a8
Lol. The science guy actually was at error (even with his numbers).
I and the professor from the site Nibedicus posted both used the same numbers as the science guy. But me and the professor got the same estimate (0.186). The science guy didn't. He clearly made a mistake somewhere. I don't know where Tbh.

"So a typically neutron stars will have a luminosity of about 0.186 times solar luminosity, though very young neutron stars can have a luminosity that is much much higher than that."

"From the papers and values that I could find the average luminosity of a neutron star..."

I'll give you some time to figure out the difference between both statements and to figure out for yourself why the answers they could up with would be different. I'll give you a chance here to not make a fool of yourself.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
"So a typically neutron stars will have a luminosity of about 0.186 times solar luminosity, though very young neutron stars can have a luminosity that is much much higher than that."

"From the papers and values that I could find the average luminosity of a neutron star..."

I'll give you some time to figure out the difference between both statements and to figure out for yourself why the answers they could up with would be different. I'll give you a chance here to not make a fool of yourself.

He used 10km as the radius and 10^6k as the temperature.
There is no way in hell you can get 0.25Lo with those numbers.

You can only get 0.25Lo if the temperature (or radius) was higher.

Originally posted by h1a8
Lol. The science guy actually was at error (even with his numbers). I and the professor from the site Nibedicus posted both used the same numbers as the science guy. But me and the professor got the same estimate (0.186). The science guy didn't. He clearly made a mistake somewhere. I don't know where Tbh.

(I feel like I gotta be the h1 lie police in these forums.)

Another lie. You don't know the exact numbers used by the Science guy.

Again, this shows that you are clearly out of your depth and I think everyone would appreciate if you would simply state all this as opinion and not fact.

Originally posted by h1a8
He used 10km as the radius and 10^6k as the temperature.
There is no way in hell you can get 0.25Lo with those numbers.

You can only get 0.25Lo if the temperature (or radius) was higher.

Fool it is.

What is the difference between "typical" and "average" (and before you try to weasel using semantics, my meaning is "as meant by the expert who posted said information"😉?

Also, are we just ignoring the flaw in your logic now?

You know THIS is what we're arguing about right? I'll just keep reposting it so ppl won't forget.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
>claims credentialed individual committed several errors.

>uses different values as credentialed individual to come up with different result.

>claims that since he came up with different result, credentialed individual must have committed an error.

>doesn't get the absolute stupidity of that.

#h1logic

😱

Originally posted by h1a8
But me and the professor got the same estimate (0.186)

Actually almost missed this.

Man, he's such a weasel, he's even trying to indirectly claim competence credit because I posted an actual computation using correct values from a credentialed source so he doesn't have to present/compute anything. Whereas the actual math he did come up with resulted in 0.024.

Because he altered the values.

Then claimed the altered values equation proves that the Because Science guy's math is wrong because the results were different.

Think about that everyone.

Originally posted by h1a8
He made several errors
1. He claims a neutron star is 1/4 as luminous as the Sun (he writes this on the screen with 0.25Lo) then says that means that a neutron star emits 1/4 the power that the sun does.
But this contradicts the equation
Power = 4pi*r^2*sigma*T^4.
Plugging in r=10^4m and T=600,000k (not 10^6 k) for neutron star in the power equation and
R=6.957x10^8m and T=5778k for Sun in the power equation gives
The power of a neutron star is 0.024 times that (not 1/4 of) of the Sun.

It's like I gotta be the lie police and watch out for little misinformation he drizzles into his replies. It's like a sickness with him.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Actually almost missed this.

Man, he's such a weasel, he's even trying to indirectly claim competence credit because I posted an actual computation using correct values from a credentialed source so he doesn't have to present/compute anything. Whereas the actual math he did come up with resulted in 0.024.

Because he altered the values.

Then claimed the altered values equation proves that the Because Science guy's math is wrong because the results were different.

Think about that everyone.

It's like I gotta be the lie police and watch out for little misinformation he drizzles into his replies. It's like a sickness with him.

600,000k is just as valid as 10^6k. How does using 10^6 instead of 600,000 discredit me? Please don’t be an idiot now.
When I plugged in 10^6 I got the 0.186 estimate.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
(I feel like I gotta be the h1 lie police in these forums.)

Another lie. You don't know the exact numbers used by the Science guy.

Again, this shows that you are clearly out of your depth and I think everyone would appreciate if you would simply state all this as opinion and not fact.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Actually almost missed this.

Man, he's such a weasel, he's even trying to indirectly claim competence credit because I posted an actual computation using correct values from a credentialed source so he doesn't have to present/compute anything. Whereas the actual math he did come up with resulted in 0.024.

Because he altered the values.

Then claimed the altered values equation proves that the Because Science guy's math is wrong because the results were different.

Think about that everyone.

It's like I gotta be the lie police and watch out for little misinformation he drizzles into his replies. It's like a sickness with him.

But 1,000,000 is not more valid than 600,000

Originally posted by h1a8
another idiot post. He gave 10km and 10^6k and the Power formula

Look at you trying to bait me by throwing around big words like "idiot". Lol. And not even providing time stamps. Lolx2.

Not falling for that, though.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
>claims credentialed individual committed several errors.

>uses different values as credentialed individual to come up with different result.

>claims that since he came up with different result, credentialed individual must have committed an error.

>doesn't get the absolute stupidity of that.

#h1logic

😱

That is the core of our argument. You threw dishonest BS math in an attempt to discredit a credible source by altering the values.

You can't even admit to this.

Thus you are just attempting to distract from it by trying to push a different debate forward.

Might work for others, but not for me.

Originally posted by h1a8
I calculated the 0.186 far before you posted the link.
I was always 2 steps ahead.

But 1,000,000 is not more valid than 600,000

h1's not even trying anymore.

So sad.

YouTube video

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Look at you trying to bait me by throwing around big words like "idiot". Lol. And not even providing time stamps. Lolx2.

Not falling for that, though.

That is the core of our argument. You threw dishonest BS math in an attempt to discredit a credible source by altering the values.

You can't even admit to this.

Thus you are just attempting to distract from it by trying to push a different debate forward.

Might work for others, but not for me.

How was the math BS?
Did I use BS numbers or a BS formula?

Tbh, I did not try to be deceiving.
This is my thought process.
I researched a typical radius and temperature for a neutron star in order to calculate the power myself.
I found two sources that gave 600,000k and 10km (1 of these sources the Science Guy links to). I plugged in the values into the power formula and got the 0.024 result. I immediately posted that he made an error. Then I remembered he used 10^6k instead of 600,000k. So I plugged that in and got 0.186 and told myself this is close to 1/5 but still not 1/4. So my reasoning led me to believe he made some sort of error. I could be wrong as I looked at his links and couldn’t find where the average neutron star is 0.25Lo.

Originally posted by h1a8
How was the math BS?
Did I use BS numbers or a BS formula?

Tbh, I did not try to be deceiving.
This is my thought process.
I researched a typical radius and temperature for a neutron star in order to calculate the power myself.
I found two sources that gave 600,000k and 10km (1 of these sources the Science Guy links to). I plugged in the values into the power formula and got the 0.024 result. I immediately posted that he made an error. Then I remembered he used 10^6k instead of 600,000k. So I plugged that in and got 0.186 and told myself this is close to 1/5 but still not 1/4. So my reasoning led me to believe he made some sort of error. I could be wrong as I looked at his links and couldn’t find where the average neutron star is 0.25Lo.

🙄

h1 has gone full Alice in Wonderland here.

Let me guess: at the end of your story you karate-chopped a giant and KO'd him via the sonic boom from your fists, right?

Am I doing this right?

I don't know who you think you're fooling here, certainly no one in this forum, certainly not me and I know you know you're lying.

At this point, this is just pathetic.

Seriously, I don't want to be mean to you but if you're just going to continue being dishonest, I don't see any reason to treat you with any kind of courtesy.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
🙄

h1 has gone full Alice in Wonderland here.

Let me guess: at the end of your story you karate-chopped a giant and KO'd him via the sonic boom from your fists, right?

Am I doing this right?

I don't know who you think you're fooling here, certainly no one in this forum, certainly not me and I know you know you're lying.

At this point, this is just pathetic.

Seriously, I don't want to be mean to you but if you're just going to continue being dishonest, I don't see any reason to treat you with any kind of courtesy.

Im telling you the honest to God truth