"If an animal were isometrically scaled up by a considerable amount, its relative muscular strength would be severely reduced, since the cross-section of its muscles would increase by the square of the scaling factor while its mass would increase by the cube of the scaling factor. As a result of this, cardiovascular and respiratory functions would be severely burdened.In the case of flying animals, the wing loading would be increased if they were isometrically scaled up, and they would therefore have to fly faster to gain the same amount of lift. Air resistance per unit mass is also higher for smaller animals (reducing terminal velocity) which is why a small animal like an ant cannot be seriously injured from impact with the ground after being dropped from any height." Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law#BiomechanicsBasically my question is what you just read from the quote and picrel bs? I am not here to debate if the crux of the theory is true, it probably is, but rather is SCL bs in terms of biological limits.What I mean is it BS to say giants are bs as the SCL says they should collapse under their own weight? Or that a species of humanoids a few inches tall would die blind and freezing even in warm weather?Basically my question is what you just read from the quote and picrel bs? I am not here to debate if the crux of the theory is true, it probably is, but rather is SCL bs in terms of biological limits.I mean you have dinosaurs several times the mass of elephants that supposedly lived, people surviving falls of thousands of feet, yet a jumping spider, much less massive than any person, can die by falling only a few feet on a hard surface.IDK, what do you anons think?Thanks in advance as always!
I doubled a paragraph, sorry.
>>41369429The image is over complicating it.Bigger things have more stuff inside them, as things get bigger the amount of stuff inside goes up faster than the bigness.It’s the same reason why an empty balloon doesn’t float around but a filled balloon does.
>>41369437This always seemed like bullshit that only technically worked because of molecular biology and how you don’t need super particle dense strength just to walk around and exist, so it’s not worth it to make things so molecularly perfect that they could support themselves under 10x earth weight, but for bugs, they have hard carapaces and are smaller so the energy to be more stable isn’t as much, so it SEEMS like it’s true, but it’s not, like if you scaled up earth and everything on it 10x but also had the creatures evolve on the planet, so they don’t get square cube gypped, then you could technically have an 10x elliphant and an 10x ant and it would make sense cuz it’s all at scale
No its not bsYes tales of actual giants are bsThe largest humans are 7-8 feet tall.Consider in ye olden days that the average humans was 5-5'6 feet tall.5-5'6 feet tall human tribe meets tribe of 7-8 feet tall humans (hereditary gigantism), definitely seems like giants.But no, there were never any humans reaching 20 feet tall.
Also, it is said mansized creepy crawlies are impossible, and would died being squashed by their own weight, but then the scientists say arthropleura was up to 8feet long. An 8 feet long millipede.
I recall having a class about how it doesn't fully explain heat transfer as we'd expect, even if there's a pattern of smaller animals having faster metabolisms whereas larger animals are slower.
>>41372686Interesting. So even schooling admit is bs.
