Replies

First of all, your "cube/square law" must be considered as baloney-to-the-max, since your presentation of it consists 100% of assertion-insult followed by more assertion-insults. — There's no "proof" in anything you've said.

You know, BroJoeK? The only one here that is throwing insults around is YOU.

I just inquired with two men here in my office. . . Both with doctorates. They both defined the square-cube law exactly as I have to you. When I told them that you described it as "cockamamie" and "baloney-to-the-max" they both started laughing uproariously and said you were ignorant of basic math AND science. I agree. You are ignorant. . . and apparently willfully so. Good thing ignorance, unlike stupidity, is curable.

Let's find out exactly how "unscientific" and "cockamamie" the square-cube law is, shall we? By the way, although it was more that forty years ago, I tutored in Physics and Math in college as an honors student in those subjects before I changed my major to Economics. The undergraduate Biology courses I took also covered how the Square-cube applied in that field. But let's look. . .

------------------

First, let's define exactly what is a "scientific law?" It is a precise meaning, separate from a hypothesis or a theory.

"A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the world. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements. Factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing causal relationships (such as those implied by laws) from principles that arise due to constant conjunction.[1]
Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to linear networks, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc. These laws remain useful, but only under the conditions where they apply.
Many laws take mathematical forms, and thus can be stated as an equation; for example, the Law of Conservation of Energy can be written as (Equations omitted because my iPad doesn't have the font. You can find them at the link. — Swordmaker).
The term "scientific law" is traditionally associated with the natural sciences, though the social sciences also contain laws.[2] An example of a scientific law in social sciences is Zipf's law.
Like theories and hypotheses, laws make predictions (specifically, they predict that new observations will conform to the law), and can be falsified if they are found in contradiction with new data."

Second, what about is the square-cube law? Per Wikipedia:

"The square-cube law (or cube-square law) is a mathematical principle, applied in a variety of scientific fields, which describes the relationship between the volume and the area as a shape's size increases or decreases. It was first described in 1638 by Galileo Galilei in his Two New Sciences.
This principle states that, as a shape grows in size, its volume grows faster than its area. When applied to the real world this principle has many implications which are important in fields ranging from mechanical engineering to biomechanics. It helps explain phenomena including why large mammals like elephants have a harder time cooling themselves than small ones like mice, and why building taller and taller skyscrapers is increasingly difficult."
(Mathematical formulation of Square-Cube Law omitted — Swordmaker)
"When an object undergoes a proportional increase in size, its new surface area is proportional to the square of the multiplier and its new volume (and consequently its mass—Swordmaker) is proportional to the cube of the multiplier."
Engineering
"When a physical object maintains the same density and is scaled up, its mass is increased by the cube of the multiplier while its surface area only increases by the square of said multiplier. This would mean that when the larger version of the object is accelerated at the same rate as the original, more pressure would be exerted on the surface of the larger object.
Let us consider a simple example of a body of mass, M, having an acceleration, a, and surface area, A, . . . (Math omitted — Swordmaker)
Thus, just scaling up the size of an object, keeping the same material of construction (density), and same acceleration, would increase the thrust by the same scaling factor. This would indicate that the object would have less ability to resist stress and would be more prone to collapse while accelerating.
This is why large vehicles perform poorly in crash tests and why there are limits to how high buildings can be built. Similarly, the larger an object is, the less other objects would resist its motion, causing its deceleration.
Engineering examples

Steam engine: James Watt, working as an instrument maker for the University of Glasgow, was given a scale model Newcomen steam engine to put in working order. Watt recognized the problem as being related to the square-cube law, in that the surface area of the model's cylinder surface to volume ratio was greater than the much larger commercial engines, leading to excessive heat loss.[1] Experiments with this model led to Watt's famous improvements to the steam engine.
Airbus A380: the lift and control surfaces (wings, rudders and elevators) are relatively big compared to the fuselage of the airplane. In, for example, a Boeing 737 these relationships seem much more 'proportional', but designing an A380 sized aircraft by merely magnifying the design dimensions of a 737 would result in wings that are too small for the aircraft weight, because of the square-cube rule.
A clipper needs relatively more sail surface than a sloop to reach the same speed, meaning there is a higher sail-surface-to-sail-surface ratio between these crafts than there is a weight-to-weight ratio.
Biomechanics
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, which is why a small animal like an ant cannot be seriously injured from impact with the ground after being dropped from any height.
As was elucidated by J. B. S. Haldane, large animals do not look like small animals: an elephant cannot be mistaken for a mouse scaled up in size. This is due to allometric scaling: the bones of an elephant are necessarily proportionately much larger than the bones of a mouse, because they must carry proportionately higher weight. To quote from Haldane's seminal essay On Being the Right Size, "...consider a man 60 feet high...Giant Pope and Giant Pagan in the illustrated Pilgrim's Progress.... These monsters...weighed 1000 times as much as Christian. Every square inch of a giant bone had to support 10 times the weight borne by a square inch of human bone. As the human thigh-bone breaks under about 10 times the human weight, Pope and Pagan would have broken their thighs every time they took a step." Consequently, most animals show allometric scaling with increased size, both among species and within a species.
The giant monsters seen in horror movies (e.g., Godzilla or King Kong) are also unrealistic, as their sheer size would force them to collapse. However, the buoyancy of water negates to some extent the effects of gravity. Therefore, sea creatures can grow to very large sizes without the same musculoskeletal structures that would be required of similarly sized land creatures, and it is no coincidence that the largest animals to ever exist on earth are aquatic animals."

The above citations are from Wikipedia, but since you've been using that, I decided it should suffice. . . however, there are literally thousands of others on the scientific basis of the square-cube LAW, which is neither, how did you put it? Oh, yes, "unscientific" and "cockamamie." It is YOU, BroJoeK, that is ignorant of science that seems to not understand science.