Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- I don't know how convinced I am. First there were dinosaurs in the past, the brachiosaurus was 4 x as big as an elephant and there are probably yet undiscovered dinosaurs that were even bigger given discovery of partial fossils like the Sauroposeidon.
Also we know in the past there were dargonflys with wingspans greater than 2 feet and centipedes that grew as long as a car.
by vivekd - One theory about large sauropods is that they were aquatic animals that propelled themselves like hippopotamuses, using their feet against the bed of the lake/river. Just as whales can get very large, so could buoyant sauropods.by projektfu
- Giant bugs are a totally different design though - don't they basically have a big exoskeleton made of different stuff than bone ? That's more like how we design a modern tank or airplane
It's also possible that for larger creatures a less dense and more flexible skeleton material (in general) might be ideal. Especially for animals that are not warm blooded (larger volume to mass ratio might resist temperature changes better?)
by Melatonic - Giant sauropods are basically big balloons, so that's a nice little hack around the issue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuMHfWSyoGIby boxed
- The atmosphere is believed to be more oxygen rich back then, in order for those dragonflies to exist.by fragmede
- They were larger but not as dense as mammals, we know had adaptations like less denser bones and different respiratory systems that allow for more efficiency and much more rapid growth into maturity. Modern birds show evidence of all these traits. When the Chicxulub extinction event happened it reset things so mammals got the upper hand on large sizes and eventully won out for the most part. Highly recommend The Rise and Fall of Dinosaurs, which I thought was going to be mostly stuff we learned as kids but was educational for me.by stevenwoo
- What about dinosaurs? not sure he's explanation makes sense given we have proven that giant dinosaurs where roaming on earth for ages.by mw67
- i can’t read the article to see what the specifics are, but assuming it’s essentially the square-cube law it doesn’t mean giant creatures can’t exist, it’s that small creatures can’t scale to be giants while being unchanged.
again i’m guessing, but if the conclusion is something like “if giant humans existed, X, Y and Z wouldn’t work”. then a “giant humans” would have to be something decidedly non-human.
by notnmeyer - It's answered in the article. The argument is not that giant creatures can't exist, but that they cannot exist as a simple scaled-up version of the otherwise identical smaller version.by canyp
- I remember as a kid reading Lucifer's Hammer novel by Larry Nivel and J Pournelle, where at some point they discuss the theory that Earth was in a very different orbit and under different gravitational conditions that allowed giant dinosaurs to exist. It didn't make much sense to me at the time, but the description of muscle and bone cross-section as the core factor in their performance stayed with me.by Jare
- About the argument that a beam's strength:weight ratio worsens as it grows: do the artificial structures humans use, like house frames or bridges' trusses, recover strength:weight ratio? Would a theoretical giant with a skeletal structure like a bridge or a house's frame be better off than one with a human-like skeleton of the same material? (And, related to another comment here, guessing the actual structure of bone produces some improvement relative to something solid?)by twotwotwo
- Actual bone does incorporate some things we would consider "architectural" or "engineering" techniques to do more with less, not least of which they are composite materials and not mere rocks. They remodel the structure dynamically to respond to stresses as well.by projektfu
- > do the artificial structures humans use, like house frames or bridges' trusses recover strength:weight ratio?
There is some improvement from computer design. We have better tools to know the margins that allow us to remove as much material as possible, things like that. So we can tweak existing designs to make them more efficient, like adjusting the section of beams to make them as strong but with a few percent less materials.
But the major improvements come from using different materials and new techniques, side-stepping the scaling issue.
For example, we could not scale old arch bridge designs very far. Getting steel beams let us build truss bridges, but even these cannot be that long in a single span. Suspended bridges were a step forward, with the improvement coming not from better beams, but from removing them altogether. Then, cable-stayed bridges solved some issues with older suspension designs and we can now have very large spans. Every time, scaling up is enabled by a change in strategy.
> Would a theoretical giant with a skeletal structure like a bridge or a house's frame be better off than one with a human-like skeleton of the same material?
Looking at things like elephants and dinosaurs, there certainly would be a way to have bones strong enough to support a 10m high human-like thing. Now, whether we would recognise that thing as human, I don’t know. Every time the problem was solved, there were significant compromises. I am not sure a giraffe’s vascular system could sustain a human’s brain. Elephants are not particularly agile. Whales cannot get out of the water.
by kergonath - This seems like a flawed argument. By the logic in this article, wouldn't horses or cows, which weigh multiple times what a human does, have to have stocky rather than slender legs?by alaithea
- How big is big?
The practical limit for bipeds is probably ability to survive a fall to the ground. It's not super common, but enough people die simply from falling from standing.
by maxerickson - 1. They stand on 4 limbs, rather than 2.
2. That would be assuming that human legs are sized at the max capacity they can carry, which is not true.
by ndr - J. B. S. Haldane discussed this in his essay On Being the Right Size:by andrewl
- I’d heard this before, but it’s a fun reminder of how, in a sense, the laws of physics depend on what size you are. (Or rather, which laws have the most impact depends on the size of objects in question)
Note that if you disable JavaScript you can read this without the nag wall.
by burlesona - You can also read Galileo's argument without Scientific American filtering: https://archive.org/details/dialoguesconcern00galiuoft/page/...by yorwba
- > for if his height be increased inordinately he will fall and be crushed under his own weight
> scaled-up wooden houses would not support their own roofs
Hmmm this argument fails to mention giraffes, elephants or dinosaurs. (Edit: ooops it does mention elephants and dinosaurs) But clearly, land animals with bones can be quite a bit larger than humans. Similarly the houses comment ignores that large multi-story wooden buildings that support their own roofs exist, and already existed in Galileo’s time.
There might be reasons today’s evolution of human anatomy can’t get any larger than 9 feet tall, but this argument about physics and bones and square vs cube growth rates is pretty unconvincing. The argument skips right past the idea of “giants” that are only 1.5x or 2x or 3x taller, rather than 10x or 100x taller. Sure animals cannot be “inordinately” bigger, but that does not explain why they can’t be twice as big.
by dahart - > dinosaurs
True for Scientific American today, not true for Galileo.
“Dinosaur” wasn’t a thing we started knowing about until the early 1800s. Benjamin Franklin died not knowing Dinosaurs were a thing.
But Galileo would have certainly known about elephants though.
by r3trohack3r - Yea, we’ve scaled wooden buildings to 25 stories.
Arguments around bone scaling ignores the impact forces of running. Scaling often means trading margins not just keeping all constraints the same.
by Retric - TV Tropes calls it the Square-Cube Law, and cites Galileo in the real life examples section:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SquareCubeLaw
It's the reason why giant robots probably couldn't be as agile or powerful as in something like Transformers or Gundam, and why kaiju like King Kong or Godzilla couldn't exist in the real world.
by CM30 - > Clearly then if one wishes to maintain in a great giant the same proportion of limb as that found in an ordinary man he must either find a harder and stronger material for making the bones, or he must admit a diminution of strength in comparison with men of medium stature; for if his height be increased inordinately he will fall and be crushed under his own weight.
> While Galileo’s argument explains the nonexistence of human giants ...
The blog completely misreads what Galileo wrote. Galileo did not write that human giants did not exist, as the blog asserts. Galileo wrote how they could have existed, which could not have happened simply by scaled body structures.
by IncRnd - I'm not sure about this... for pure shear or tension load the strength scales by the square of the diameter, so increasing beam "linear size" by 10 gives only 100x strength, but our beam-bones would usually fail in bending, not in shear, where the strength scales by a factor of 10,000x (stress = (bending Moment x beam radius) / (Area Moment of Inertia of beam cross section), where the Area moment of inertia is a function of cross section diameter^4) And don't we already know that giant dinosaurs existed?by tofuziggy
- In general, the argument holds some water, but it ignores the fact that human bones can take a lot more than their own weight today — depending, obviously, on how they are stressed (they can probably take maximum force along their lengthwise axis, but depends on the bone too — femur is said to take 30x the body weight, and we've got 2). Also, their structures — just like bending an edge on thin metal sheet — can significantly increase their carrying strength without changing the weight.
I'd also note that it does not take a lot for someone to be a "giant". When average height was 1.6m, someone 2.2m tall was certainly a "giant" (they are even today, but it means they'd frequently be asked if they are playing basketball :)).
But even if they were 4m tall, they'd certainly be called a giant and certainly regular human bones could handle weight up to say 450 kg. Heck, someone brought up horses and cows, and horses certainly jump off two hind legs and land on two front ones, putting a lot more than 600kg of their standing weight on them.
So in short, Scientific American is right to bring up the fact that someone like Galileo would put his genius to folk topics back in the day, we do have a bit more to lean on today to come up with even stronger conclusions — so they'd better highlight how his thinking compares to what was known back in the day.
by necovek