This topic is now about how many hamsters would need to be stacked on top of each other in order to reach the moon.
It depends. It depends on what kind of hamster, and where in the orbit the moon is. I'll assume the moon is at its average distance (238,857 miles). And I'll guess at an approximate height of the average hamster at about 1.5 inches (some sources say 6 inches, but that's clearly length, not height). That being the case, it would take 10089319680 hamsters (approximately) stacked one on top of the other in order to reach the moon.
Now clearly such a stack would not be stable. A more stable formation would one hamster standing on the backs of four hamsters beneath it. So the top layer would have one hamster, the next would have 4, the next 9, etc. If we use this model, the number of hamsters required would be 3.42X10^29.
This number can vary drastically depending on the specific distance the moon is at, and the specific height of the hamsters. And obviously this doesn't take into account the troubles of weightlessness so far up, or just how you're going to get so many hamsters to stand still, or how the weight would positively crush the hamsters on the bottom. And at that point, it's probably better to just pile up a bunch of dead hamsters, but that's rather an unpleasant thought.
So, yeah. My estimate is 3.42X10^29 hamsters.
If you're going to be that pedantic you should know that 3.42x10^29 hamsters would be more than double the mass of Saturn sitting in between Earth and the moon. Pretty sure you wouldn't have to worry about wobbly hamster legs when there isn't a planet and moon left to measure the distance between.
Plus, it was a question of hamster height as a UoM, not which structure would be the most sound, measured in total hamsters used to generate said structure. Your first number was much more accurate.
You're talking about an amount of hamsters that would exceed the matter density limit and create a black hole. They would physically no longer be hamsters, and dissolve into fundamental particles, which would form a black hole. I'm far too lazy to figure out how big it would be, but my gut says somewhere between a golf ball and the size of a candlepin bowling ball, which is roughly the size of a bocce ball for you non-New Englanders.
3.42x10^29 is a mind bogglingly large number. If you multiplied 100 trillion by 100 trillion, you would still be two decimal places short. And then, you'd have to multiply that number by 3.4 to get there.
And if you had $100 trillion in $1 bills, stacked on top of each other it would reach to the moon and back 14 times. And that's just 100 trillion pieces of paper. You're talking about a number that is roughly 600 times that size, and then squared.
That number is like owning 600 trillion banks, and each one of those banks has 600 trillion dollars in it, and then trying to figure out how much money you have. One billionth of that amount is still 3.4x10^20. Which is something like 342 quintillion, if my brain is functioning properly. And when it comes to math this big, no ones brain functions properly. Woof.
Except higher FPS allows for better gameplay, so your last point is a load of meaningless crap.
Also you can't tell the difference so your entire opinion is meaningless. Someone who can't tell the difference between 2 things is the worst person in existence to given an opinion on them. Whats next, you gonna have a guy who can't the difference between 2 different musical genres tell us which is better? They're about as qualified to tell as about something they know nothing about as you are.