Real scientists, not crackpots, really demolishing your anti-scientific piffle.
The square/cube law, like the Young Earther's typical, thoroughly hilarious, misapplication of the Second Law of Thermodyanmics, does not "prove" anything.
Real scientists...
***I see this argument over and over again. It’s baloney.
If someone has a PhD in a field, they should be proud of it and post out in the open rather than anonymously. The reason they don’t is because they know they might be proven wrong, and their livelihood is placed in jeopardy.
That is the whole reason why Fellowships were established. So scientists could pursue whatever they wanted without being hounded out of their profession. But that has simply not been the case with several fields such as LENR. Science is in complete disarray because scientists cannot be trusted.
I am not anti-scientific, I am against hide-bound science. I see that in too many disciplines.
First of all, I see NOTHING in these discussion where I or the other participants have indicated any of us are "young Earthers" and the Cube/square law is NOT being misapplied at all in that is certainly applicable in biomechanics. I learned of it first in biology in junior high school.
Thank you for this link. I read this paper before. It is a good theory, but it does not address the issues. It is where I saw the arguments for gigantism being an evolutionary plus that BroJoeK dismissed so blithely.
Fred, this paper takes us back to the now abandoned theory the large raised their heads to forage in the treetops. Sorry. Real scientists have dropped that because it requires a BP too high to account for getting the blood up the neck. This paper addresses this issue by discussing the possibility of soft tissue structures in the neck ala Giraffe valves to postulating the addition of seven helper hearts located somewhere along the neck—despite no such adaptation being seen in nature anywhere—to attempt to account for the severe problem. The conclude such hypotheses are untenable, and leave it at that but accept the raised head foraging. Never do they address the strength problem of the shear strength of a cantilevered neck (apparently no structural engineer was involved in this study) made of hydroxyl apatite bone and sinew, even lightened by their hypothetical hollowed-out bird structure that really doesn't comport to the more solid cervical vertebrae found.
Nor do they really consider at all the real problem of the cube/square law and the diminishing muscle size/power returns except trying to lighten their sauropods but even their lightened weight chart puts the weight of the Argentinosaurus at ~73,000 KG or 160,600 lbs., with their one paragraph on the subject being of the begging 'begging the question" type where they agree that gravity DOES limit growth but then accept the upper limits based on observed fossil record while citing the peer reviewed work that established the problem. I.E., They kicked the can down the road and did not really address the issue. Their only addressed concern with cube/square scaling is thermodynamic. . .
It's an interesting paper but only in that it's not multidisciplinary. It is a paper from a paleontological viewpoint. . . but ignores other disciplines. There, it fails.