Giant human like 30 to 90 ft tall possible or not

[crowbird2]

Adapting has nothing to do with the fundamentals of engineering. Whether alive, dead or otherwise the basics apply to all equally - as Borek said, the underlying physics are the same.

I'd like to see the actual evidence to back up that claim and not just some email on a website. Note that not even wikipedia mentions these speed claims from your post, but so far I've only been able to confirm speeds of around 100mph - I notice you only chose the one link reporting the high speed and ignored those not mentioning it.

According to wiki, mythbusters tested this and they found:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneeze

I'd also add that the ability to withstand an extremely short period of exposure is not the same as withstanding the same force for a prolonged period.
In a car crash the human body can sustain over 100g's in shock loading and survive. Now expose the body to 100g's for an extended period and see what happens - it's not pretty.

I also got a link which says it is 800 mph, LOL.

 

[JaredJames]

I also got a link which says it is 800 mph, LOL.

Well share then.

So far you haven't backed up any of your claims. The anecdote from an email isn't evidence.

Regardless, as above shock loading isn't the same as extended periods under the same load.

 

[crowbird2]

Well share then.

So far you haven't backed up any of your claims. The anecdote from an email isn't evidence.

Regardless, as above shock loading isn't the same as extended periods under the same load.

800 mph was a wiki answer link without reference, but the 630 mph do have a reference, they say JFK Health Museum claimed that.

 

[JaredJames]

800 mph was a wiki answer link without reference, but the 630 mph do have a reference, they say JFK Health Museum claimed that.

I can find no other reference to that speed outside of "the JFK Health Museum" quote which is identical no matter where you read it. There is not one link back to source material.

That, is not evidence. That is hearsay at best.

It seems that this one quote has spread around the internet like a bad rash. There are no other references to it, any time it pops up the wording is identical.

It's still all irrelevant and even if true doesn't support you in any way, a point you seem to keep missing.

 

[crowbird2]

I can find no other reference to that speed outside of "the JFK Health Museum" quote which is identical no matter where you read it. There is not one link back to source material.

That, is not evidence. That is hearsay at best.

It seems that this one quote has spread around the internet like a bad rash. There are no other references to it, any time it pops up the wording is identical.

It's still all irrelevant and even if true doesn't support you in any way, a point you seem to keep missing.

LOL, If it seems not to be an evidence then why don't you ask those museum guys about their 85% super-sonic claim?

 

[JaredJames]

LOL, If it seems not to be an evidence then why don't you ask those museum guys about their 85% super-sonic claim?

You are making the claim so it is you who must back it up. That is how it works.

What you provided is not evidence, it is hearsay. It's someone saying someone said they maybe claimed something.

Now, either start providing evidence for your claims or I recommend this thread is locked as you will continue trolling with useless posts.

 

[crowbird2]

You are making the claim so it is you who must back it up. That is how it works.

What you provided is not evidence, it is hearsay. It's someone saying someone said they maybe claimed something.

Now, either start providing evidence for your claims or I recommend this thread is locked as you will continue trolling with useless posts.

LOL, Ya, lock the thread, that will be better for you. I hope one day you will understand that there are more to see, than what you see through the narrow loophole of your high school science project.

 

[JaredJames]

LOL, Ya, lock the thread, that will be better for you. I hope one day you will understand that there are more to see, than what you see through the narrow loophole of your high school science project.

Better for me? I've backed up all my claims, you are the one who has failed to back up anything you've said. You are the one who has shown a strong mis-understanding of the basic concepts of biology and engineering.

You keep attacking my education (and others) and yet you have shown nothing that makes me think you are over age 15.

If you can't back up what you claim, why would I believe it? Is there a reason you can't provide valid sources?

The fact you constantly ignore / dodge requests for evidence tells me you have none. It tells me you have no idea what you are talking about and throwing in random subjects / topics simply to try and confuse the matter. The fact you would rather see the thread locked than back up your claims and the way you are debating the matter tells me you have a different angle on this than others here, I'm thinking religion - creationist perhaps?

I'm half tempted to get Solidworks setup and run a model just to prove it isn't possible - would that convince you?

 

[crowbird2]

Better for me? I've backed up all my claims, you are the one who has failed to back up anything you've said. You are the one who has shown a strong mis-understanding of the basic concepts of biology and engineering.

You keep attacking my education (and others) and yet you have shown nothing that makes me think you are over age 15.

If you can't back up what you claim, why would I believe it? Is there a reason you can't provide valid sources?

The fact you constantly ignore / dodge requests for evidence tells me you have none. It tells me you have no idea what you are talking about and throwing in random subjects / topics simply to try and confuse the matter. The fact you would rather see the thread locked than back up your claims and the way you are debating the matter tells me you have a different angle on this than others here, I'm thinking religion - creationist perhaps?

I'm half tempted to get Solidworks setup and run a model just to prove it isn't possible - would that convince you?

Hey man, cool down, I'm sorry that you got hurt because of some comments. take it easy. I was just trying to outline the whole issue from a broader perspective than just simple calculation.

Do one thing, get full tempered and make a Solidworks model then run some simulation, consider the options I have mentioned and find out the maximum possible size of lungs. That would be a great job.

One more thing, somebody has claimed that 630 mph, this claim is not challenged yet I think. I am not asking you to believe it, but you have option to verify it and prove it wrong.

Don't get hurt, It's not my intension to hurt you. Take care.

 

[JaredJames]

Hey man, cool down, I'm sorry that you got hurt because of some comments. take it easy. I was just trying to outline the whole issue from a broader perspective than just simple calculation.

In this case, it's all about the calculations. Period.

Do one thing, get full tempered and make a Solidworks model then run some simulation, consider the options I have mentioned and find out the maximum possible size of lungs. That would be a great job.

If I do that, would you accept the results when it shows there is a maximum size? Remember, more complication won't change the results I've already shown, only refine them.

One more thing, somebody has claimed that 630 mph, this claim is not challenged yet I think. I am not asking you to believe it, but you have option to verify it and prove it wrong.

The somebody who claimed it was you. I can quote the post if you want. You must back up that claim or it is worthless - the link with it is not a valid reference. I am challenging it now.

Besides, I've explained why it isn't relevant to your argument anyway.

Don't get hurt, It's not my intension to hurt you. Take care.

The only thing hurt here is your reputation. It's doing a Titanic at the moment.

If you can't back up your claims, don't make them. It is not down to me to check the accuracy of your claims and I don't have to research it. That is your job.

I think my last post was a little too close to home for you. Now either conform to the PF rules and substantiate your claims or go elsewhere to spout your nonsense. I want to see relevant arguments with evidence to back them up.

 

[crowbird2]

The somebody who claimed it was you. I can quote the post if you want. You must back up that claim or it is worthless - the link with it is not a valid reference. I am challenging it now.

Well, may be this link will be little more reliable to you than the previous link:

"[URL almost as fast as speed of sound
----By Dr. Terry Gaff[/URL]

 

[JaredJames]

Well, may be this link will be little more reliable to you than the previous link:

"[URL almost as fast as speed of sound
----By Dr. Terry Gaff[/URL]

Nope, that doesn't cut it.

The only mention of it in the article is the following:

Studies estimate the air speed of a sneeze up to around 85 percent of the speed of sound.

It doesn't back up your claim, only restate it. It has no link to the source materials that make that claim.

In fact, despite the title of the article, it doesn't discuss the speed of a sneeze aside from the above quote. It talks about why sneezes occur and when some people sneeze, moving on to germs spreading.

I suggest you look at the forum guidelines for an idea of what constitutes valid evidence.

 

[Evo]

This has gone on long enough.