From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Date: 18 Aug 92 05:33:25 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <714019201@sheol.UUCP> throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>> From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
>> Message-ID: <1992Aug16.023113.3121@smds.com>
>> As far as "Holden's number" is concerned, it reminds me of the old
>> chestnut of the three men, the hotel, and the bellboy.
>> [...]
>> The trick, of course, is that numbers that don't go together are being
>> combined illegitimately.  It's all a bit of flim-flam.  Holden's number
>> is much like that missing dollar...

>Well...  the metaphor is appealing, but isn't sufficiently exact for my
>taste.  The point I'll try to bring out below is that Ted (though he
>explains himself very poorly) is not adding apples to oranges as in the
>hotel bill, but rather he is keeping a separate basket of apples that he
>refuses to add into the total. 

... Long, but very lucid description of Holden's Number deleted ...

To be honest, I never pay much attention to Holden's actual arguments
-- they're on the long winded side and a trifle incoherent.  The man
is entertaining in his style of vituperation, but digging through layers
of intellectual dyslexia is not one of my past times.

I have to give you credit for making a much better case for Holden's
number that he does himself, but it's still (IMHO) flim-flam.

If you want to look at how big an animal can be there are really two
numbers that are meaningful -- the compression loading per unit area
of the supporting limbs and the shear stress when the limbs are out of
vertical alignment [for animals supported by their limbs].  Alexander
goes through all of this very carefully.  The compression loading is
the factor limiting weight -- the shear stress is the limit on motion.

Holden's calculation implicitly assumes that surface area is directly
proportional to support area -- a patently false assumption.  Animals
of different sizes have different support area/surface area ratios.

Holden also confuses load bearing and lifting, which are two entirely
different propositions.  A quadruped or dinosaurian style biped does
not have lift its weight -- it has to support it.  The amount of weight
that a weight lifter can lift is irrelevant; the relevant factor is the
ammount of weight that he can bear, i.e support.  [And, indeed, a human
being can support a much greater weight than he can lift.]

Adding mass supported and mass lifted is simply illegitimate.  I will
give Holden this credit.  In the hotel and bellboy story, the trick is
that one adds a number that one should be subtracting.  Holden is, at
least, adding two numbers.

----

The above is a simplification; the popular works of McGowan, Bakker,
and Alexander tackle the issues of dinosaur weight and motion at
length.  And of course one can tackle the professional journals.
In any case the popular works do provide the framework for a correct
and meaningful approach to these kinds of questions.

One has to give Holden credit.  He propounds a potpourri of preposterous
propositions.  To make his case, he has taken a smattering of carefully
selected facts and quotations [usually out of context].  He has buttressed
his case with plausible and misleading calculations.  His ingenuity
in doing so is moderately impressive.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: talk.origins