|
This is starting to get a tad out of hand. The earlier debates over the series and tech and stuff was alright. Now you wish to bring in actual scientific equations to try and prove your case? That's going too far. It's not that I mind them being used, but they need to be used correctly. The four equations I was shown are real and do in fact calculate a simple, ideal scenario of an object being thrown into the air. Key words here: simple and ideal. Yes, it involves gravity. But that's it. Those equations are used in basic physics to get an initial understanding on how an object decelerates as it is affected by gravity. If you want to figure out how high an object goes in reality, you need more and bigger equations to factor in air resistance, density, any rotation on the object during its ascent, etc. Doing this on a person makes it even more complex since you then need to worry about a varying center of gravity, constantly changing surface profile, and protrusions on the object that are not fixed relative to the object (i.e. limbs and head). To clarify, by fixed I mean points on the protrusions do not change their spacial coordinates relative to the object/center of gravity. Second, getting measurements off a drawn picture would not fly as a means to draw scientific measurements. Objects, especially objects at distance or seen at angles, are drawn stylized to give the viewer an illusion of distance and perspective. This is similar to optical illusions that use it to trick the human eye. Also camera that are used are commonly positioned facing tangent to the path of travel of the object or normal to the path of travel to avoid having to over-complicate the measurements taken from the images to compensate for the angle of prospective. That's why on actual pictures you will always, always see some type of scale included physically in it or imposed onto it if it is being used for scientific purposes. This way you can know the true scale it is at and convert a measurement taken with, say, a ruler in your hand and then convert it using the scale in the picture to get the (mostly) true measurement. I say mostly because there will always be an estimation of the scaling factor due to not wanting an infinite amount of decimal places. This is why many times you till have a tolerance included in the figures to compensate for this (seen commonly after a +/- ). So basically any so-called 'measurements' taken from an image are invalid without knowing the true scale in which they are drawn (which is why practically every school book has the 'not to scale' disclaimer on images which are not accurate and only drawn as a pictorial representation or example to give a general idea). As an engineer I couldn't let equations be used improperly, especially if they are being used in support of arguments. And the stuff about drawing illusions? Learned that first week of basic drawing class.
|