From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Uniformity:  miniscule cause and monstrous effect
Date: 22 Dec 92 05:47:57 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <724828585@sheol.UUCP>, throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
^:From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
^:Message-ID: <178@fedfil.UUCP>
^:Wayne Throop provides viewers with more than sufficient evidence for regarding
^:him as an idiot.  There is the little matter of supposing a sauropod dinosaur
^:the same size as Bill Kazmaier to be magically capable of lifting more than
^:Kazmaier, the most powerful creature ever created by modern science at his
^:size of 340 lbs.

^Lucky for me, I never claimed the effect was magical.  That's all in
^Ted's fevered imagination.  No, the effect is totally due to physics,
^the calculations for which I've laid out and upon which Ted has never
^given any relevant comment.  


I've given more than relevent comment to this bullshit...  I've demolished it.

Most of body weight on Kazmaier is muscle;  precious little on a sauropod is.
The sauropod's weight was mostly the huge digestive system needed to handle
massive quantities of leaves (low-value) as food.  Further wasted weight
(as far as lifting goes) were the long neck and tail. Visually, the ratio of
percentage weight devoted to lifting muscle would appear to be something like
ten to one or more between Kazmaier and the saur.

Structurally, any juxtaposed photo will show Kaz to have thicker limbs than
the saur.  Any difference in leverage would favor him.

There is the further consideration that the 1000 lb lift I've been using as an
example is a five-second deal for Kaz.  The brontosaur walked around with a
70,000 lb load all day long.  For the ultrasaur, the load was more like
360,000 lbs, and that's a documented fact.

I have shown that it is common knowledge amongst people who study that sort
of thing that there is little if any difference between muscle tissue from
any two vertibrates, and that it all looks nearly alike under microscopes.
No possible claim can be made that sauropods' muscle was somehow "better"
than ours.

I have shown that if scaled to 70,000 lbs, Kazmaier, the most powerful 
350 lb creature which modern exercise regimens and science has yet been
able to produce, could lift no more, in any way shape, or manner, than 
around 47,000 lbs.  He'd be pinned to the ground by our gravity.  

This follows by regarding the max squat or dead lift (or reasonably near max)
as being 1000 lbs (the bar) + 350 (Kaz), and then using the normal scaling
factor for all lifting events, the two-thirds power of body-weight thus:

350            x
---      =    ---
1350^.67      70000^.67

which is simple algebra.

There is no 350 lb creature which eats leaves and low value food which comes
remotely close to being as strong or having anything like the lifting abilities
which Kaz has.  Candidates would include hogs, and certain members of the
goat and deer families, possibly.  Put a 1000 lb weight on top of any such
creature and watch what happens.

Scaling Kaz to 70000 lbs is equivalent to the following thought-experiment:

Imagine Kaz and a sauropod dinosaur of the same size at 350 lbs, which is sort
of like imagining Kaz standing next to some sort of a pygmy elephant or
baby elephant.  You know the baby elephant won't survive having a 1000 lb
bar placed on its shoulders.  Assume then that both are teleported to a planet,
the gravity of which would bring Kaz to 1350 earth lbs.  Kaz would still
be standing;  the baby elephant wouldn't.  Now imagine both being teleported to
a second planet at which Kaz weighed 70,000 lbs.  Even Kaz would be flattened
here, and the baby elephant would be long-since flattened.

The identical same thing would happen to a 70,000 lb brontosaur, were he to
be so unfortunate as to be transported into our times, our solar-system
arrangement, our perceived gravity.

Anybody who doubts any of this should really get a picture of Kazmaier and
a picture of a sauropod dinosaur, scale them to the same size on his/her
Xerox machine, and juxtapose them.  What Throop is claiming requires the
saur to be the stronger of the two, by more than a two-to-one ratio, at
the same size.

I claim that is obviously and patently absurd, and I'm willing to rest my
case this one.  Anybody wishing to believe Throop on this may feel free.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins