Nope. It doesn't. Read the paper.
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.
Nope. You misunderstood what the paper says.
The conclude such hypotheses are untenable, and leave it at that but accept the raised head foraging.
Nope. They conclude that ONE hypothesis is UNTESTABLE. Not untenable. Those words do not mean the same thing.
Nor do they really consider at all the real problem of the cube/square law
They don't, because they don't need to. The upper limit posited by the FR Flat Earth Society of 20 tons is ridiculously small. The number theorized -- and modeled by paleontologists, biomechanical scientists, biomechanical engineers, and material scientists -- is 100 tons. Please see the citation in this review and read that article, if you're interested. [Hokkanen, J. E. I. (1986). The size of the biggest land animal. Journal of Theoretical Biology 118, 491–499. CrossRef | PubMed | CAS | Web of Science® Times Cited: 4]
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.
Please actually read the paper. They don't say any such thing. They cite the original paper with the ridiculously flimsy limit, and proceed to demolish it with two more recent citations, both with much larger numbers, one a full 5 years later, which increases the estimate by a factor of FIVE. Citing a more recent paper that blows up your silly claim isn't "kicking the can down the road."
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
Thanks for proving for the fourth time in one post that you haven't actually read the paper.
It's A REVIEW PAPER. Do you even know what that means? Of course it's multi-disciplinary. They gather all the known evidence for large sauropod morphology and they cite the papers and briefly summarize the reasons for the current state of thinking; it isn't an original research work in paleontology [or anything else] AT ALL. It's a review paper, and in particular, the strength of materials cite is from experts in Biomechanics. NOT paleontologists. The Journal of Theoretical Biology isn't a dinosaur publication.
Wow.
Read the paper. Then check the citations. That's what a review paper is for.
Describes the thesis of secondary "helper" hearts being needed to get blood to a sauropod's head. That is, if he held his head upwards. If he held his head outwards, then as I mentioned above, you're talking about a requirement for as much as three quarters of a million foot pounds of torque, that is, torque equivalent to the maximal torque of all of the engines of the Yamato or the Musashi, to be held by muscle and connective tissue (if you assume 1 G in the dinosaur's world).
In actuality, the brachiosaurids held their heads upwards and the diplodocids held their necks outwards, or at least that's what the bones indicate. Basically, assuming present gravity in the world of the dinosaurs introduces an unavoidable conundrum.
As I said, they addressed it by begging the question. I've also read that paper that uses their evidence of the fossil record. . . But there still stands the issue of the KNOWN, tested, and accepted limitation of muscular strengths. This is why Paleontologists are revising so much about dinosaurs. Have you noticed how MUCH has been changed in the past thirty years? Now they are adding feathers! Why is the upper limit 100 tons in that Hokkanen paper? Because that was the largest reported sauropod they knew about in 1986. . . Had later discoveries of 200 tons found later in the '90s been available to Hokkanen, I suspect he would have declared the empirical upper limit to be 200 tons . . . how convenient. That's fudging your "theoretical" conclusions to fit the evidence you have. They've now scrambled around to reduce the estimated weights to get them below their 100 ton "limit." As I said, they begged the question. . . sweeping the issues under the carpet.
Finally, I know what a review paper is. . . it's still one written by mainstream Paleontologists about paleontology. It's a paper that supports your beliefs and what you are arguing. Fine. I could link you to a lot more. . . and other that have been superseded by materials in this one. It doesn't mean that it cannot be challenged. Try opening your mind a bit. . . and stop assuming people are stupid. Thanks for playing.
It’s A REVIEW PAPER.
***So you accept a review paper when it agrees with your bias but reject one when it disagrees with your bias. Not very scientific, no, not scientific at all.
Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated hundreds of times by more than a
thousand scientists, even in mainstream peer-reviewed journals.
https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2&sh=www.springerlink.com
.
Jing-tang He
• Nuclear fusion inside condense matters
• Frontiers of Physics in China
Volume 2, Number 1, 96-102, DOI: 10.1007/s11467-007-0005-8
This article describes in detail the nuclear fusion inside condense
matters—the Fleischmann-Pons effect, the reproducibility of cold fusions,
self-consistency of cold fusions and the possible applications
.
Note that Jing-tang He found there were 14,700 replications of the Pons
Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect.
http://www.boliven.com/publication/10.1007~s11467-007-0005-8?q=(%22David%20J.%20Nagel%22)
.
National Instruments is a multibillion dollar corporation that does not
need to stick its neck out for “bigfoot stories”. After noting more than
150 replications, they recently concluded that with so much evidence of
anomalous heat generation...
http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf
Conclusion
• THERE IS AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL EVENT and there is a need of better
measurements and control tools. NI is playing a role in accelerating
innovation and discovery.
The current state of the science of LENR is that the Pons Fleischmann
Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated and it is an established
scientific fact. But it is not an established ENGINEERING field because the
effect is difficult to generate and there is still some lingering stigma
associated with the field. The level of pathological resistance this field
receives is unconscionable for those of us who seek scientific answers and
engineering solutions.
That 86 paper of Hakkonen’s (claim of a size limit of 2,000,000 lbs) is a total joke and if you don’t KNOW why that’s a joke, I’m not going to explain it for you. Why don’t you take a really hard look at the thing and come back and tell ME why it’s a joke, I mean if you can’t do that you’re not really worth arguing with on that sort of topic.