Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtp47.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw
From: throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: The Misapplication of Powerlifting to the case of the Ultrasaur
Message-ID: <175@rtp47.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Sep-85 12:43:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: rtp47.175
Posted: Fri Sep  6 12:43:28 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Sep-85 16:36:38 EDT
References: <387@imsvax.UUCP>
Organization: Data General, RTP, NC
Lines: 59

Strange how someone who accuses others of making elementary mistakes can
make so many, and all in a single posting.  Some of the more obvious
ones:

> Stanley Friesen and several other commentators on the net have replied
> in numerous articles that they don't really understand the reason why a
> hundred foot long, three hundred thousand pound ultrasaur would have any
> insurmountable problems functioning in our gravity.

They have done no such thing.  Rather, they have stated that they *do*
understand why is *is* possible, another thing altogether.

> Generally, whenever an animal doubles it's size, all other factors being
> equal, it's power to weight ratio gets cut in half.

Wrong.  The problem introduced by the square-cube disparity is not
"power", as in muscular power, but structural strength.  Thus, most of
the rest of this article is so many wasted bits, since it is a
calculation of the muscular power available to some Sauropods.  An
incorrect one at that.

> [Omitted calculation of a quantity purported to give the
>  muscle-to-weight-supported ratio]
> First, the ratio would, in reality, be higher for a maximally trained
> human athlete than for any herbivore,

Wrong.  Human muscle tissue, even in trained athletes, is quite a bit
weaker than "equivalent" muscle tissue from most animals.  The reason
for this is not clear, but I have seen factors of between 2 and 10 for
ratios of animal-to-human muscle tissue strength.  This is one reason
that even juvenile (100 pound or so) primates can be physically very
dangerous to their human handlers.

> Of course, the ultrasaur didn't have access to dianabol.

Fantastic!  *Of course* the ultrasaur *did* have access to "dianabol"
(or equivalent anabolic steroids)!  Just where were these compounds
discovered?  In animal tissue!  A given level of anabolic steroid
observed in (untreated) humans says *next to nothing* about the level
that might be observed in some Sauropod or other.

> It would thus seem that, given our gravity, there is a threshold for
> size and weight beyond which no animal could be wide enough to provide a
> base for the legs it would take to bear it's own weight.  An animal
> beyond that threshold should properly be regarded as a mathematical
> impossibility in our world, given our gravity.  The ultrasaur is beyond
> that point by a considerable margin.

First, it would be a physical impossibility, not a mathematical
impossibility.  Second, Ted's calculations by no means show that the
ultrasaur is beyond the point of physical impossibility, because the
*wrong quantity* was calculated, power instead of structural strength.
And last, the calculation of power available was based on faulty
premises in any event.

All in all, I think Stanley Friesen's "Large animals and gravity"
posting is the clear winner in the Battle of the Network Sauropods.
-- 
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
<the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw