Alligator "knocks" on woman's door.

[JohnH]

Nah, I’m not tossing Old Testament accounts into the “unverified claims” bin—that’s a different conversation altogether. I was referring to Ohio Jones’ vague “gathtimates” about a taller human, which sounds like speculation without hard evidence. When it comes to gigantism, I’m sticking to measurable records like the 19-foot alligator or 20.7-foot anaconda. If you’ve got specific accounts or evidence of giants or massive creatures, biblical or otherwise, I’m all ears—let’s dig into it!

You do realize who OJ was referring to, right?

Ha, I might’ve missed the nudge there—sounds like Ohio Jones was hinting at something specific, maybe a biblical figure like Goliath or another giant? If that’s the case, I’ll own the oversight. Still, my point was about needing solid evidence for claims like a taller-than-recorded human or a 50-foot alligator. If OJ’s referencing a particular giant from scripture or elsewhere, I’d love to hear more—spill the details, and let’s unpack it!

[ken_sylvania]

Nah, I’m not tossing Old Testament accounts into the “unverified claims” bin—that’s a different conversation altogether. I was referring to Ohio Jones’ vague “gathtimates” about a taller human, which sounds like speculation without hard evidence. When it comes to gigantism, I’m sticking to measurable records like the 19-foot alligator or 20.7-foot anaconda. If you’ve got specific accounts or evidence of giants or massive creatures, biblical or otherwise, I’m all ears—let’s dig into it!

You do realize who OJ was referring to, right?

Ha, I might’ve missed the nudge there—sounds like Ohio Jones was hinting at something specific, maybe a biblical figure like Goliath or another giant? If that’s the case, I’ll own the oversight. Still, my point was about needing solid evidence for claims like a taller-than-recorded human or a 50-foot alligator. If OJ’s referencing a particular giant from scripture or elsewhere, I’d love to hear more—spill the details, and let’s unpack it!

Oh brother. I should have recognized that this guy had turned into a bot a number of posts back already.

[Soloist]

Taught history and lit to high schoolers. Then became a college registrar. Then came to my senses and retired.
How about you?

I’m a fair bit younger. I exclusively work home health nursing. A little boring, but very rewarding work. Plenty of downtime to browse Menno.

[Ken]

It’s not my area of study or even an area I’m remotely experienced in. I have heard it said before though that some species defy what we understand about aerodynamics.

It is not aerodynamics. It is geometry.

Here is the geometric explanation for why animals can't just scale up indefinitely. When you double the length of any animal or object you are actually increasing its mass by the cube of the length or 8-fold because the mass (or volume) of that animal will increase in 3-dimensions.

So a 20 ft alligator is actually 8-times larger than a 10 ft alligator. And a 40 ft alligator would be 64-times larger and heavier than a 10 ft alligator. Which means that the skeleton and muscles of a 20 ft alligator would need to be 8-times stronger and more powerful than that of a 10 ft alligator for it to move the same and support its weight.

In the diagram below, the 2x2 cube is actually 8-times larger than the 1x1 cube. And the 4x4 cube is 64 times larger

[Soloist]

Here is the geometric explanation for why animals can't just scale up indefinitely. When you double the length of any animal or object you are actually increasing its mass by the cube of the length or 8-fold because the mass (or volume) of that animal will increase in 3-dimensions.

So a 20 ft alligator is actually 8-times larger than a 10 ft alligator. And a 40 ft alligator would be 64-times larger and heavier than a 10 ft alligator.

In the diagram below, the 2x2 cube is actually 8-times larger than the 1x1 cube. And the 4x4 cube is 64 times larger

Wife: I wonder if the same could be said for the difficulty of solving your different Rubik’s cubes.

I do remember learning something about that and bird aerodynamics or lung capacity. Don’t know how that translates to reptiles, but I’m not gonna be the one brave enough to get out the measuring tape.

[Soloist]

It’s not my area of study or even an area I’m remotely experienced in. I have heard it said before though that some species defy what we understand about aerodynamics.

It is not aerodynamics. It is geometry.

Here is the geometric explanation for why animals can't just scale up indefinitely. When you double the length of any animal or object you are actually increasing its mass by the cube of the length or 8-fold because the mass (or volume) of that animal will increase in 3-dimensions.

So a 20 ft alligator is actually 8-times larger than a 10 ft alligator. And a 40 ft alligator would be 64-times larger and heavier than a 10 ft alligator. Which means that the skeleton and muscles of a 20 ft alligator would need to be 8-times stronger and more powerful than that of a 10 ft alligator for it to move the same and support its weight.

In the diagram below, the 2x2 cube is actually 8-times larger than the 1x1 cube. And the 4x4 cube is 64 times larger

I was referencing the hummingbird or the bumblebee. I don’t remember which one.

[Ken]

I was referencing the hummingbird or the bumblebee. I don’t remember which one.

Yeah. I've heard that same thing.

I think the same principles of scale apply when you scale down as when you scale up. Such that the aerodynamics of insects are completely different from the aerodynamics of birds or airplanes since they are so much smaller and relatively speaking the air they are flying in is so much more dense. The surface area to volume ratio of an insect like a bumble bee is completely different than it is for an eagle or an airplane. And for them the air will be proportionately more dense such that flying through air for an insect is going to be more like swimming through water for us.

So no, the aerodynamics of a bumblebee would never work if they were human sized or airplane sized. But they work when they are bumblebee sized.

[ohio jones]

I think you’re still a bit young to be commenting on usual suspects. Maybe give it a few months more

69 ain't young and I've been reading the archives.

As they say, 69 is the new 96. It's all a matter of perspective.

[JohnL]

I think you’re still a bit young to be commenting on usual suspects. Maybe give it a few months more

69 ain't young and I've been reading the archives.

As they say, 69 is the new 96. It's all a matter of perspective.

What does that make you? You're only as old as you feel.

[JohnH]

69 ain't young and I've been reading the archives.

As they say, 69 is the new 96. It's all a matter of perspective.

What does that make you? You're only as old as you feel.

Sometimes 96 year olds feel 90. I hear that when you get into that age range, it's hard to remember how old you are.