From: amorgan@csd-d-3.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Kazmaier at 200,000 lbs vs the 200,000 lb sauropod
Originator: amorgan@csd-d-3.Stanford.EDU
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:06:45 GMT

In article <60@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>Two thirds power of body weight is an inverse function to the square-cube
>operator, or whatever you want to call it.  It is the normal scaling factor
>for all competitive lifting events.

Almost all of which have only human competitors (as far as I know).

>Bwtween some point above your lightest athletes, say maybe 160 lbs or so, and
>some point below your superheavyweights like Kazmaier, say 230 or so, most
>of these athletes are of very similar build, scaling being the main 
>difference between them (olympic lifters).  Therefore, 2/3 power of weight
>serves very well as a means of determining an overall strongest man;  the
>numbers for each event nearly line up when divided by 2/3 power of the 
>athletes' weights.

Agreed.  For humans.

>This scaling indicates that at 200,000 lbs, Kazmaier, the strongest man
>we know of in our age, would not be able to squat even half his weight;
>he'd be pinned to the ground by our present gravitational system.

Again, agreed.  If you made him as big as an elephant (say) he might
have difficulty.  Elephants, however, manage just fine.

.. deleted ..

>Which presents a problem;  we know that sauropods lived which weighed more
>than 200,000.  McGowan and others give out a figure of 180 tons for the 
                ^^^^^^^
(and people say he doesn't learn)

>ultrasaur at 100', and we now know of at least two creatures which were
>a great deal larger than that.  But let's limit ourselves to 200,000
>sauropods and consider how they lived.

Uh, Ted.  For the 200,000th time your equations are only valid insofar
as they are applied to *humans*.  You have not shown that they work
for all animals (and the fact that, by coincidence, one big elephant
happens to match your numbers proves nothing).  Humans aren't all that
good at lifting.  Plenty of animals can run more efficiently (faster) 
than people, plenty of animals can jump more efficiently (higher) than 
people, why can't some animals lift more???? Hell, we know that chimps 
and gorillas can run all over your Holden Number, why do you persist 
in claiming it means anything?

Because Ted says so.  Sorry, I forgot.

.. deleted

>I honestly cannot think of any other possibility, other than for one.

Proof by lack of imagination.  How droll.

>The felt effect of gravity in the age of dinosaurs was heavily attenuated
>by gravitational pull from some other, very close,  cosmic body.

If you ignore the fact that such pull would involve the Earth being ripped 
apart into bite sized chunks and taking up permanent orbit around the
aforementioned cosmic body I think it's a great theory Ted.  If you 
ignore the fact that it violates conservation of angular momentum and 
has no geologic evidence to support it and that the Earth moving to
its present orbit would involve the death of everything on the planet
I think it is a great theory. If you ignore the fact that footprint 
depths show that the dinosaurs had the predicted weight (and not your 
reduced weight) the theory is flawless.

Pity we can't ignore them.
 
>Ted Holden
>HTE

C Frog
Newsgroups: talk.origins