478 replies to this topic

[Der Geisterbaer]

Nightbird, on 04 March 2018 - 09:42 AM, said:

Here is a 200 Ton Commando. From eyeballing, the waist and shoulders are still smaller than the Atlas despite the slightly higher height, so I would still say the volume is still slightly less than today's Atlas.

So the basic proposition you needed for your PSA is straight out of the window: Those mechs quite obviuosly do not have identical density per volume unit. So anything you tried with that special case of linear volumetric rescale was just a waste of time from the get go ..

Nightbird, on 04 March 2018 - 09:42 AM, said:

Do you really think any of those items you listed makes that big of a difference?

Yes, I know for sure that the attempt to use a linear volumetric rescale like you did is intellectually dishonest due to the propositions you hadto make and albeit your math wasn't strictly wrong it just wasn't proper either .. yet your PSA claims that its the proper math and then you continued with a conclusion that is as wacky as whatever PGI did with their "volumetric rescale".

[Nightbird]

:shrug: point to some volume density data and I'll use it. Calling this dishonest when I stated the assumption is a bit much, especially when there is no density data to be used.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Nightbird, on 04 March 2018 - 01:02 PM, said:

:shrug: point to some volume density data and I'll use it.

Why would I want to do that? You were the one that waltzed into this forum with your PSA and made those propositions and explicitly said that they were "math" and thus implied "correctness".

Nightbird, on 04 March 2018 - 01:02 PM, said:

Calling this dishonest when I stated the assumption is a bit much, especially when there is no density data to be used.

No, calling it dishonest is actually quite nice because you seem pretty well aware of the fact that "volumetric rescale" doesn't automatically mean "linear rescale with preserved aspect ratio" and since you had to mention "assuming uniform density" I would also infer that you were aware that those two mechs you compared do not necessarily have the same density. I could have called it "a lie" and would still be "correct"

[Nightbird]

Wow, nope, I stated uniform density because there is no way of doing non-uniform density.

[Escef]

Why are all of these comparisons showing the front, and none the side?

[Der Geisterbaer]

Nightbird, on 04 March 2018 - 01:23 PM, said:

Wow, nope, I stated uniform density because there is no way of doing non-uniform density.

So you deliberately used a special case for which you have no proof that it actually applies. That's where it gets "dishonest" in terms of using allegedly "proper math".

[Nightbird]

Escef, on 04 March 2018 - 01:24 PM, said:

Why are all of these comparisons showing the front, and none the side?

Let me know which mechs you'd like to see, be glad to do a few.

Der Geisterbaer, on 04 March 2018 - 01:27 PM, said:

So you deliberately used a special case for which you have no proof that it actually applies. That's where it gets "dishonest" in terms of using allegedly "proper math".

All math is based on assumptions

[Der Geisterbaer]

Nightbird, on 04 March 2018 - 01:52 PM, said:

All math is based on assumptions

~sigh~ And you wonder why I'm calling your stuff "dishonest" ...

[Nightbird]

Der Geisterbaer, on 04 March 2018 - 01:55 PM, said:

~sigh~ And you wonder why I'm calling your stuff "dishonest" ...

All of mathematics is based on un-proveable assumptions - called axioms
https://en.wikipedia...ematical_axioms

If you want to disagree with this you'll have to debate with all the mathematical geniuses in history though, not me.

edit:

Basically, all of mathematics is built upon stating a set of un-proveable assumptions (axioms), and then building it up. You can disagree with an axiom, but you cannot prove or disprove it. Stating that assumptions in math is dishonest or lying is a funny joke.

Here, I stated in the first sentence an assumption needed to draw more conclusions. If you want to replace it with a better assumption, go right ahead, but due to lack of sources it is what it is.

Edited by Nightbird, 04 March 2018 - 02:10 PM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Nightbird, on 04 March 2018 - 02:04 PM, said:

All of mathematics is based on un-proveable assumptions - called axioms

And are you aware of the difference between an "axiom" and an "assumption"?

Nightbird, on 04 March 2018 - 02:04 PM, said:

If you want to disagree with this you'll have to debate with all the mathematical geniuses in history though, not me.

And that's where you're strawmanning it ... /applaud.

[Nightbird]

Der Geisterbaer, on 04 March 2018 - 02:09 PM, said:

And are you aware of the difference between an "axiom" and an "assumption"?

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/axiom

Quote

noun
1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.
3. Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

Edited by Nightbird, 04 March 2018 - 02:13 PM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Nightbird, on 04 March 2018 - 02:13 PM, said:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/axiom

So you can cite other sources ... Now you'll just have to figure out where your proposition differs from an actual mathematical proposition and where you fall flat with regards to being assumed without proof with regards to the consequences that follow from that ...

Oh and still a strawman

[Nightbird]

All my other sources show that Assault mechs are more dense than Light mechs, and therefore should be even smaller than what I showed. Want to see those?

[Dimento Graven]

Unfortunately, all deference to the OP's intent, he's making the assumption that these 'mechs are all the same density.

Also assumes that the quantity of materials required to make a 25 ton 'mech function scales directly with the amount necessary for a 100 ton 'mech.

I don't think 'volumetric scaling' applies...

[Der Geisterbaer]

Nightbird, on 04 March 2018 - 02:30 PM, said:

All my other sources show that Assault mechs are more dense than Light mechs, and therefore should be even smaller than what I showed.

Now isn't that funny? Your original conclusion seemed to be that light mechs are too small in comparison to assaults. Now you're actually arguing that Assaults should be smaller instead. What's it gonna be?

Nightbird, on 04 March 2018 - 02:30 PM, said:

Want to see those?

Since that wouldn't miracously make your PSA less inaccurate ... I'll take a firm pass on those.

[AncientRaig]

I mean, to be fair lights aren't really that small in BT. A Commando is supposed to be about 8 meters tall, and a Banshee is about 14. I think the Atlas is like 16 meters tall.

Edited by AncientRaig, 04 March 2018 - 02:48 PM.

[Escef]

Nightbird, on 04 March 2018 - 01:52 PM, said:

Let me know which mechs you'd like to see, be glad to do a few.

How about all the ones you did comparisons of? Your scaling example of the Atlas vs. the Commando, for eample does not show us if the Commando once scaled up is thicker than the Atlas (which could easily make up for it being shorter).

[Nightbird]

Dimento Graven, on 04 March 2018 - 02:34 PM, said:

Also assumes that the quantity of materials required to make a 25 ton 'mech function scales directly with the amount necessary for a 100 ton 'mech.

So sometimes it takes 3x the materials and sometimes 5x the materials right?

Der Geisterbaer, on 04 March 2018 - 02:35 PM, said:

Now isn't that funny? Your original conclusion seemed to be that light mechs are too small in comparison to assaults. Now you're actually arguing that Assaults should be smaller instead. What's it gonna be?

That was not my original conclusion.

[FupDup]

Nightbird, on 04 March 2018 - 02:48 PM, said:

So sometimes it takes 3x the materials and sometimes 5x the materials right?

I don't think that's what he meant.

A specific example might be the proportion/ratio of your total mass that gets spent on internal structure. In BT every mech uses the same %, but as far as I've heard that's not realistic. Realistically the larger mechs would need a higher proportion of their body mass spent on internal frame than a small mech (cube square law, right?).

The idea that a 100-ton and 20-ton mech both spend exactly 5% of their weight on their skeleton is silly, either the 100-tonner should spend more than 5% or the 20-tonner should spend lower than 5%. The point is that the ratios for stuff like that would not be the same, it's not like upscaling a .png image file.

[Nightbird]

Escef, on 04 March 2018 - 02:47 PM, said:

How about all the ones you did comparisons of? Your scaling example of the Atlas vs. the Commando, for eample does not show us if the Commando once scaled up is thicker than the Atlas (which could easily make up for it being shorter).

I'll start with just one if you don't mind. The Atlas is a very thick mech and all the other humanoid mechs are less thick so it actually makes it look worse rather than better. If I was doing an animal shaped mech, the depth makes more sense to compare.