Discover Habbo's history
Treat yourself with a Secret Santa gift.... of a random Wiki page for you to start exploring Habbo's history!
Happy holidays!
Celebrate with us at Habbox on the hotel, on our Forum and right here!
Join Habbox!
One of us! One of us! Click here to see the roles you could take as part of the Habbox community!


Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    200
    Tokens
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BeatHost View Post
    Not really, its basic GCSE maths it took less than a minuite. He says this thread is proving haters wrong when it clearly isnt as a 35'' tv is nothing like a 27'' tv.
    It's a 32" i just placed my Xbox next to my 32" tv and it measures up the same. Get over it your wrong.

    Nice set up though.
    -

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,807
    Tokens
    0

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    He didnt say it was 32'' he said it was 35''
    Last edited by MrPinkPanther; 19-06-2008 at 04:28 PM.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    24,818
    Tokens
    63,690
    Habbo
    FlyingJesus

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GearsOfWar View Post
    How is this proveing us wrong? This isn't the TV you posted in your thread, it's a completely different one, and you've had that poster for two years? Well done.
    Quote Originally Posted by BeatHost View Post
    No its not?!?!?!?!

    Look at the size of the 360 and the TV. The 360 is about as tall as the TV screen and the TV screen is about twice as long as its height. Ill work out its appoximate dimensions.

    Pythagoras theorem
    (12.15x12.5)+(24.3x24.3)
    156.25+590.49
    =746.74
    Root 746.74=27.326

    So its around 27' nowhere near 35', lying isnt cool.
    Ahahaha thread winners
    | TWITTER |



    Blessed be
    + * + * + * +

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,807
    Tokens
    0

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    I just remeasured it useing objects of the same depth, no way is it 32''

    Proof
    I alinged the DVD boxes shown in the picture along the screen overlapping them slightly so if anything the screen size I give will be bigger than his. I used the DVD boxes because as the bottom picture shows they are at the exact same depth as the TV.



    Its 25 boxes by 45 boxes or 35cm by 63cm. Now this time rather than using my own method I decided to use an online calculator to prove it works.
    http://www.analyzemath.com/Geometry_...rectangle.html

    Enter in 35x63 and you will find the Diagonal of the TV (Which he claimed to be 35'' then 32'') around 72.06941. We can then use a CM to Inches calculator (http://www.manuelsweb.com/in_cm.htm) and we come out with 28.4 in. It is less than 28.4 in because I delibratly overlapped the DVD cases to give the maximum possible size the TV could be. If you would like to try this yourself then please feel free you will only come out with the same result I did.

    I dont care if you say Im sad, the first one took less than a min and this way took around 4-5 mins which only took longer because Im explaining why it isnt 32''.
    Last edited by MrPinkPanther; 19-06-2008 at 05:15 PM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    6,980
    Tokens
    0

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BeatHost View Post
    I just remeasured it useing objects of the same depth, no way is it 32''

    Proof
    I alinged the DVD boxes shown in the picture along the screen overlapping them slightly so if anything the screen size I give will be bigger than his. I used the DVD boxes because as the bottom picture shows they are at the exact same depth as the TV.



    Its 25 boxes by 45 boxes or 35cm by 63cm. Now this time rather than using my own method I decided to use an online calculator to prove it works.
    http://www.analyzemath.com/Geometry_...rectangle.html

    Enter in 35x63 and you will find the Diagonal of the TV (Which he claimed to be 35'' then 32'') around 72.06941. We can then use a CM to Inches calculator (http://www.manuelsweb.com/in_cm.htm) and we come out with 28.4 in. It is less than 28.4 in because I delibratly overlapped the DVD cases to give the maximum possible size the TV could be. If you would like to try this yourself then please feel free you will only come out with the same result I did.

    I dont care if you say Im sad, the first one took less than a min and this way took around 4-5 mins which only took longer because Im explaining why it isnt 32''.
    Whats wrong with you...?
    Doubt everything, even this.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Brighton.
    Posts
    4,285
    Tokens
    1,183

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BeatHost View Post
    I just remeasured it useing objects of the same depth, no way is it 32''

    Proof
    I alinged the DVD boxes shown in the picture along the screen overlapping them slightly so if anything the screen size I give will be bigger than his. I used the DVD boxes because as the bottom picture shows they are at the exact same depth as the TV.



    Its 25 boxes by 45 boxes or 35cm by 63cm. Now this time rather than using my own method I decided to use an online calculator to prove it works.
    http://www.analyzemath.com/Geometry_...rectangle.html

    Enter in 35x63 and you will find the Diagonal of the TV (Which he claimed to be 35'' then 32'') around 72.06941. We can then use a CM to Inches calculator (http://www.manuelsweb.com/in_cm.htm) and we come out with 28.4 in. It is less than 28.4 in because I delibratly overlapped the DVD cases to give the maximum possible size the TV could be. If you would like to try this yourself then please feel free you will only come out with the same result I did.

    I dont care if you say Im sad, the first one took less than a min and this way took around 4-5 mins which only took longer because Im explaining why it isnt 32''.
    It's not the fact that you're doing the math...

    it's the fact WHY you're doing the math... WHY do you care about something so petty?
    Incase you cannot read my signature properly, my user name on runescape is Scriptermone.

    *Image Removed*
    *Image Removed*
    *Image Removed*

    Signature edited by Agesilaus (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not have signature images that go over the total height size allowed for your user group.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,807
    Tokens
    0

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    His thread is trying to prove how awesome he is, its merely him boasting about it when actually hes just lying. Im just disproving it.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Brighton.
    Posts
    4,285
    Tokens
    1,183

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Yeah but why do you care about him boasting? If he wants to boast about 'how awesome he is' let him :S it's not causing anyone any harm atall...

    you're TRYING to disprove him...

    when really what you're doing is PROVING that you have too much time on your hands.
    Incase you cannot read my signature properly, my user name on runescape is Scriptermone.

    *Image Removed*
    *Image Removed*
    *Image Removed*

    Signature edited by Agesilaus (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not have signature images that go over the total height size allowed for your user group.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    23,585
    Tokens
    9,258

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BeatHost View Post
    His thread is trying to prove how awesome he is, its merely him boasting about it when actually hes just lying. Im just disproving it.
    Hardly boasting... Everyone can buy a 32" Samsung, heck you can get a 42" for £999 with a free blu-ray player. And Xbox 360s are as common as pigeons.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,825
    Tokens
    0

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BeatHost View Post
    I just remeasured it useing objects of the same depth, no way is it 32''

    Proof
    I alinged the DVD boxes shown in the picture along the screen overlapping them slightly so if anything the screen size I give will be bigger than his. I used the DVD boxes because as the bottom picture shows they are at the exact same depth as the TV.



    Its 25 boxes by 45 boxes or 35cm by 63cm. Now this time rather than using my own method I decided to use an online calculator to prove it works.
    http://www.analyzemath.com/Geometry_...rectangle.html

    Enter in 35x63 and you will find the Diagonal of the TV (Which he claimed to be 35'' then 32'') around 72.06941. We can then use a CM to Inches calculator (http://www.manuelsweb.com/in_cm.htm) and we come out with 28.4 in. It is less than 28.4 in because I delibratly overlapped the DVD cases to give the maximum possible size the TV could be. If you would like to try this yourself then please feel free you will only come out with the same result I did.

    I dont care if you say Im sad, the first one took less than a min and this way took around 4-5 mins which only took longer because Im explaining why it isnt 32''.
    Sort yourself out man, geez.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •