Giant human like 30 to 90 ft tall possible or not

[JaredJames]

Firstly, we're not allowing evolution - as per my own clarification at the start of this thread, we cannot change current human factors.

Anyway, let's do some numbers.

Let's assume the following:
The standard human has a lung capacity of 1m³.
The opening to the lung is 0.1x0.1m (0.01m²).
It takes them 4 seconds to fill the lungs completely.
You need all of that capacity filled in 4 seconds to survive.
(I know it's not quite like that, but it will do to demonstrate the point.)

Now that gives you a volumetric flow rate of 0.25m³/s and flow velocity of 25m/s.

Ok, so now we double the human in size:
New lung capacity = 8m³
New opening dimensions = 0.2x0.2m (0.04m²)
All other conditions remain equal.

Now that gives you a volumetric flow rate of 2m³/s and flow velocity of 50m/s.

Ok, so now we double the human in size again:
New lung capacity = 64m³
New opening dimensions = 0.4x0.4m (0.16m²)
All other conditions remain equal.

Now that gives you a volumetric flow rate of 16m³/s and flow velocity of 100m/s.

As you can see, the rough calculation is that every time you double the size of the human, the required flow velocity to sustain them doubles also.

So far, we've only taken your average height human and doubled their size twice (equivalent of going from 5.5ft to 22ft in height) and already they've gone from breathing at 55mph (which we'll take to be the 'normal' breathing flow velocity our body can withstand) to requiring a 223mph wind down their throat just to get enough oxygen in their body.

All else aside, the required air speeds would tear your flesh to pieces. And that's before we get to actually generating the required pressures to attain those speeds. (Consider what it takes to artificially generate those wind speeds).

Now I know my figures are way too big, but it demonstrates how vast the increases are even when simply doubling the size.

Now, so far as anything that isn't human goes, please leave it out. The only answer to what you pose in your post is that they are different species, specifically evolved to those conditions. There really is no more to it.

Like I said previously, we're not allowing evolution as the moment we start allowing these factors to change, anything becomes possible - and also less human.

 

[JaredJames]

Just something for you here:

Based on rough estimates, I have a lung volume of ~0.009m³.
My wind pipe is ~0.0009m².
It takes me 5 seconds to completely fill my lungs.
I need ~0.0045m³ to survive with per breath.

This means I have a volumetric flow rate of 0.0018m³/s and a flow velocity of 2.00m/s (4.50mph). This is the rate purely for me to survive.

Now let's double my size:
New lung volume = 0.072m³.
My wind pipe is 0.0036m².
It still takes me 5 seconds to completely fill my lungs.
I need 0.036m³ to survive with per breath.

This means I have a volumetric flow rate of 0.0144m³/s and a flow velocity of 4.00m/s (9.00mph). Again, this is the rate purely for me to survive.

Now you'll note again that my breathing flow velocity roughly doubles when size is doubled. So far, I've gone from 1.78m to 3.56m in height (5ft 10in to 11ft 8in).

So using this as a basic formula, v_n+1=2v_n, and iterating a few times, gives me my required breathing rate at heights within the OP's specified range:

Height = 15m, Flow Velocity = 16m/s (36mph).
Height = 30m, Flow Velocity = 32m/s (72mph).

I'm not typing the pressure calcs here, but according to what I've worked out, going from 1.78m to ~15m (5ft 10in to 50ft) increases the required pressure drop in the lungs (from atmospheric) by two orders of magnitude to gain the required flow velocity. Even at only 30ft in height the required pressure is increased by one order of magnitude.

Of course, if the body can't supply the required pressure drop at the new 100x larger value than previously, that means I end up breathing slower. If I can't get enough oxygen into my lungs in time, I won't be around very long.

_{NOTE: Windpipe and lung sizes are estimates, based on rough approximations from myself and figures from various sources. Both have been assumed square for simplicity.}

So crowbird2, is this enough "analytical detail" for you? The only final detail will be working out the maximum size a human can be enlarged to based on lung capacity. To do this, you need to know the maximum pressure differential the body can create and then apply this to the above to gain the largest human size possible.

If you wish to complete the above please feel free, I however have been awake 23 hours straight, drank 2 litres of energy drink and sat a 3 hour maths paper - the only thing I'm doing right now is passing out.

 

[crowbird2]

Just something for you here:

Based on rough estimates, I have a lung volume of ~0.009m³.
My wind pipe is ~0.0009m².
It takes me 5 seconds to completely fill my lungs.
I need ~0.0045m³ to survive with per breath.

This means I have a volumetric flow rate of 0.0018m³/s and a flow velocity of 2.00m/s (4.50mph). This is the rate purely for me to survive.

Now let's double my size:
New lung volume = 0.072m³.
My wind pipe is 0.0036m².
It still takes me 5 seconds to completely fill my lungs.
I need 0.036m³ to survive with per breath.

This means I have a volumetric flow rate of 0.0144m³/s and a flow velocity of 4.00m/s (9.00mph). Again, this is the rate purely for me to survive.

Now you'll note again that my breathing flow velocity roughly doubles when size is doubled. So far, I've gone from 1.78m to 3.56m in height (5ft 10in to 11ft 8in).

So using this as a basic formula, v_n+1=2v_n, and iterating a few times, gives me my required breathing rate at heights within the OP's specified range:

Height = 15m, Flow Velocity = 16m/s (36mph).
Height = 30m, Flow Velocity = 32m/s (72mph).

I'm not typing the pressure calcs here, but according to what I've worked out, going from 1.78m to ~15m (5ft 10in to 50ft) increases the required pressure drop in the lungs (from atmospheric) by two orders of magnitude to gain the required flow velocity. Even at only 30ft in height the required pressure is increased by one order of magnitude.

Of course, if the body can't supply the required pressure drop at the new 100x larger value than previously, that means I end up breathing slower. If I can't get enough oxygen into my lungs in time, I won't be around very long.

_{NOTE: Windpipe and lung sizes are estimates, based on rough approximations from myself and figures from various sources. Both have been assumed square for simplicity.}

So crowbird2, is this enough "analytical detail" for you? The only final detail will be working out the maximum size a human can be enlarged to based on lung capacity. To do this, you need to know the maximum pressure differential the body can create and then apply this to the above to gain the largest human size possible.

If you wish to complete the above please feel free, I however have been awake 23 hours straight, drank 2 litres of energy drink and sat a 3 hour maths paper - the only thing I'm doing right now is passing out.

Good job, Thanks.

Now let us consider some points.

According to your view, it seems like if we plot a air speed vs time curve, it will be alternating square wave. which will surely impose kind of shock on the internal membrane of breathing tube. But in reality it is no way like square wave. Air speed will gradually increase, reach to a maximum point then fall back to zero, then alter the direction and similar thing will happen. This will not put any sudden shock on the internal membrane of breathing tube.

Also, the breathing tube is not just like a pipe, it has a complex internal architecture. Many convergence and divergence with different cross-sectional shape together will come in consideration. You will need some numerical modeling with computer aided simulation to replicate that. Different part of this breathing tube will experience different speed and pressure.

There is a term, "Boundary layer" in fluid mechanics. You have to consider that. Also the viscous-elastic behavior of air will also have to be considered for impact analysis.

The internal surface membrane and bones will also increase thickness if you think of a scaled up version of human being. Increased thickness means better re-enforcement of the internal wall of breathing tube.

Biological adaptation is a very important factor here (I think you can call it micro-evolution). Human body has a tendency to adapt changes for additional protection against regular exercise. (For example, people who use mouse for computers, a thick-skin spot is created in the wrist, if you practice folding your knees to sit on the floor regularly, there will be some thick skin spot in different parts of your leg for adapting extra load bearing capacity of the impacted area of skin). If the breathing tube got little wider to allow extra wind in the lungs, would it be impossible to sustain extra wind speed (there may be many other factors that we are not considering here).

 

[JaredJames]

According to your view, it seems like if we plot a air speed vs time curve, it will be alternating square wave. which will surely impose kind of shock on the internal membrane of breathing tube.

I don't know where you got that but I've never claimed such a thing. In fact, I've never claimed any form of shock type effects due to breathing.

But in reality it is no way like square wave. Air speed will gradually increase, reach to a maximum point then fall back to zero, then alter the direction and similar thing will happen. This will not put any sudden shock on the internal membrane of breathing tube.

It doesn't matter how long it takes to reach its maximum speed (remember, my figures are averages - I assumed you'd realize that on reading, there will be a higher maximum value to get the required average). Stand in a high speed wind and tell me if it hurts your skin. The membranes of your body have a certain structural make up. They can only take so much. The effects of 4.5mph wind on the membrane is not the same as a 72mph wind. What I'm saying is that as the wind speed increases, the potential for it to damage those membranes also increases - if only from friction (to keep it simple).

Given that the air speed increases with the square law as per my calcs above, there is a point where your breathing air speed is high enough to damage your membranes.

Also, the breathing tube is not just like a pipe, it has a complex internal architecture. Many convergence and divergence with different cross-sectional shape together will come in consideration. You will need some numerical modeling with computer aided simulation to replicate that. Different part of this breathing tube will experience different speed and pressure.

All highly irrelevant and unnecessary. I have shown you that in order to get enough air into my lungs, I need a certain air velocity when breathing (my average velocity - again see the note above regarding maximum values). It doesn't matter what part of the wind pipe experiences what speed / pressure specifically, the average is what matters. You can analyse it all you want, but for every value you find below the average, there must be an equivalent above to compensate for it - that's what gives you the average. So what you are saying here actually works against you in that it means that higher extremes are experienced.

There is a term, "Boundary layer" in fluid mechanics. You have to consider that. Also the viscous-elastic behavior of air will also have to be considered for impact analysis.

I study aerospace engineering, I am very much aware of these terms. They really don't mean that much in this context, as per my above comment regarding the analysis.

The internal surface membrane and bones will also increase thickness if you think of a scaled up version of human being. Increased thickness means better re-enforcement of the internal wall of breathing tube.

You can increase thickness all you like, but the outer layer (that is in contact with the air) will have to be strong enough to withstand the airspeed. If the outer layer isn't, it will be damaged. Remember, the strength of the outer membrane isn't increased. The factors must stay the same as per the OP. Otherwise, we could just allow evolution to increase the strength and deal with it.

Biological adaptation is a very important factor here (I think you can call it micro-evolution). Human body has a tendency to adapt changes for additional protection against regular exercise. (For example, people who use mouse for computers, a thick-skin spot is created in the wrist, if you practice folding your knees to sit on the floor regularly, there will be some thick skin spot in different parts of your leg for adapting extra load bearing capacity of the impacted area of skin).

You're referring to a Callus? I don't know if they are the body adapting or simply an adverse reaction to extreme pressure. As far as I'm aware, it doesn't occur to aid the load bearing capacity. Can someone confirm this?

If the breathing tube got little wider to allow extra wind in the lungs, would it be impossible to sustain extra wind speed (there may be many other factors that we are not considering here).

Well we'd need to know the physiology of the wind pipe. That would allow us to know how much it could withstand. There will be a maximum - even if it evolved to be solid steel.

 

[JaredJames]

I don't know why the issue of wind speed is so big here anyway. I've already outlined the major issue and that is pressure difference required to breathe.

1. You need a certain amount of air, within a certain amount of time in order to survive. That requires you meet a minimum average velocity for breathing.

2. To generate the above average velocity, you need to produce a pressure differential. As per my above calculations, the air speed increases by the square law and so you need a bigger and bigger pressure differential with each increase in height.

I indicated above that you require a pressure differential two orders of magnitude larger than what I currently produce.

You can't waive this away and it poses a lot of problems when it comes to the bodies "internal engineering".

As an addition to my above post, an important note for you is wind chill. The faster you breathe, the greater the wind chill factor on your wind pipe / mouth. This can have severe effects on the body - heat loss rate for one.

 

[crowbird2]

I don't know why the issue of wind speed is so big here anyway. I've already outlined the major issue and that is pressure difference required to breathe.

1. You need a certain amount of air, within a certain amount of time in order to survive. That requires you meet a minimum average velocity for breathing.

2. To generate the above average velocity, you need to produce a pressure differential. As per my above calculations, the air speed increases by the square law and so you need a bigger and bigger pressure differential with each increase in height.

I indicated above that you require a pressure differential two orders of magnitude larger than what I currently produce.

You can't waive this away and it poses a lot of problems when it comes to the bodies "internal engineering".

As an addition to my above post, an important note for you is wind chill. The faster you breathe, the greater the wind chill factor on your wind pipe / mouth. This can have severe effects on the body - heat loss rate for one.

For a bigger human, the diaphragm muscle (Thoracic diaphragm, by which we pump our lungs) will also be bigger and stronger, it will not be a problem creating the pressure differential.

You need detail computer aided analysis (considering possible biological adaptations) for determining maximum possible lungs size. Just some high school math is not enough to decide about this type of issues.

 

[JaredJames]

For a bigger human, the diaphragm muscle (Thoracic diaphragm, by which we pump our lungs) will also be bigger and stronger, it will not be a problem creating the pressure differential.

No it wouldn't. Bigger does not mean stronger. That is pure assumption on your part.

You need detail computer aided analysis (considering possible biological adaptations) for determining maximum possible lungs size. Just some high school math is not enough to decide about this type of issues.

Nope, wrong again.

I have shown you what happens with the lung pressure differential alone. I have described to you the problems you would face. You are making far too many assumptions and trying to overcomplicate things and cloud the issue.

I am answering this problem from an Aerospace Engineering perspective.

 

[Borek]

Just some high school math is not enough to decide about this type of issues.

That's the beauty of scaling - it IS enough to use simple math to show if something can be done or not.

 

[crowbird2]

No it wouldn't. Bigger does not mean stronger. That is pure assumption on your part.

Well, in this particular case just telling "Bigger does not mean stronger" is your another "high school science project"-assumption. physiological strength of muscle has relation with muscle size, cross sectional area, available cross-bridging, responses to training and many other factors.

Nope, wrong again.

I have shown you what happens with the lung pressure differential alone. I have described to you the problems you would face. You are making far too many assumptions and trying to overcomplicate things and cloud the issue.

I am answering this problem from an Aerospace Engineering perspective.

Aerospace Engineering does not deal with this kind of issues. There are many biological terms involved. This is not just as simple as flowing fluid over a hard surface (may be that's why this issue feels over complicated to you, LOL ). Your perspective needs some integration of "biological point of view".

=============
You said, "chilling effect" will increase and thus result some kind of abnormal heat loss. Well my friend, a bigger body will surely generate more heat, so that chilling effect is probably going to help maintaining the thermal-regulation of the body.

 

[Hellohi]

If I could just add something, It was possible in the old days, and still could today, but we'll never know until we actually see one.

 

[JaredJames]

If I could just add something, It was possible in the old days, and still could today, but we'll never know until we actually see one.

There is absolutely no evidence that giant humans ever existed and so far that it's possible (without massive changes to physiology). Period.

The bones they apparently found are no where to be seen and their existence can't be confirmed.

 

[JaredJames]

Well, in this particular case just telling "Bigger does not mean stronger" is your another "high school science project"-assumption. physiological strength of muscle has relation with muscle size, cross sectional area, available cross-bridging, responses to training and many other factors.

Aerospace Engineering does not deal with this kind of issues. There are many biological terms involved. This is not just as simple as flowing fluid over a hard surface (may be that's why this issue feels over complicated to you, LOL ). Your perspective needs some integration of "biological point of view".

I think you'll find that my subject is very relevant here (heck you brought up flow regimes and boundary conditions which are all a part of it). I'm not finding it over complicated, you are the one who keeps trying to bring in irrelevant issues.

The mechanics of the body is an engineering issue. To calculate the various pressures / strengths is basic engineering concepts. You keep saying about "biological factors" but they are simply numbers in the equations, they're not something special.

You said, "chilling effect" will increase and thus result some kind of abnormal heat loss. Well my friend, a bigger body will surely generate more heat, so that chilling effect is probably going to help maintaining the thermal-regulation of the body.

Larger animals maintain body temperature better than smaller ones.

Regardless, that wasn't my point by bringing in wind chill. Your tissues will sustain damage at various temperatures - this is independent of size. If the temperature in your wind pipe / mouth is taken too low you will damage your body.

How about instead of you simply telling us we're wrong, you show us the maths / evidence that says you're right. I'm saying it isn't possible and have shown the numbers which correlate this.

I must insist you start showing something to back you up. You keep responding with snippets of information with little substance to them as most of the post is irrelevant. If you know some special answer, please do show it (whether by the maths or by some external source). If you can show it, I'll happily change my stance on this matter.

 

[Borek]

Your perspective needs some integration of "biological point of view".

I suggest you do some reading about biomechanics to see how the same principles apply to both engineering and biology. That's because the physics is in both cases identical.

 

[crowbird2]

I suggest you do some reading about biomechanics to see how the same principles apply to both engineering and biology. That's because the physics is in both cases identical.

LOL, actually same principle do not always apply same way to both Engineering & Biology. Living creatures are not some dead objects of your jet propulsion lab. They are alive and have adaption capability. For example read this:

"A person who is born and lives at sea level will develop a slightly smaller lung capacity than a person who spends their life at a high altitude. This is because the partial pressure of oxygen is lower at higher altitude which, as a result means that oxygen less readily diffuses into the bloodstream. In response to higher altitude, the body's diffusing capacity increases in order to process more air.

When someone living at or near sea level travels to locations at high altitudes (eg. the Andes, Denver, Colorado, Tibet, the Himalayas, etc.) that person can develop a condition called altitude sickness because their lungs remove adequate amounts of carbon dioxide but they do not take in enough oxygen. (In normal individuals, carbon dioxide is the primary determinant of respiratory drive.)

Specific changes in lung volumes occur also during pregnancy. Decreased functional residual capacity is seen, typically falling from 1.7 to 1.35 litres, due to the compression of the diaphragm by the uterus. The compression also causes a decreased total lung capacity (TLC) by 5% and decreased expiratory reserve volume. Tidal volume increases with 30-40%, from 0.45 to 0.65 litres, and minute ventilation by 30-40% giving an increase in pulmonary ventilation. This is necessary to meet the increased oxygen requirement of the body, which reaches 50 mL/min, 20 mL of which goes to reproductive tissues. Overall, the net change in maximum breathing capacity is zero."---wikipedia

 

[Borek]

You are again throwing around facts not understanding the basic principles. Nobody denies existence of adaptation capability, but you are the only person not understanding that adaptation capability is limited by physics. Exactly the same physics limits our engineering capabilities, for exactly the same reasons.

 

[JaredJames]

LOL, actually same principle never always apply to both Engineering & Biology. Living creatures are not some dead objects of your jet propulsion lab. They are alive and have adaption capability. For example read this:

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.

 

[crowbird2]

You are again throwing around facts not understanding the basic principles. Nobody denies existence of adaptation capability, but you are the only person not understanding that adaptation capability is limited by physics. Exactly the same physics limits our engineering capabilities, for exactly the same reasons.

Of course adaptation capability is limited by physics--- And I am not denying that, What I am arguing is the procedure to determine that limit (which is definitely not just a high school math job) and the factors to be considered for this purpose.

Tell me what will be the limit of air flow rate/ speed inside breathing tube? As far I know, when people sneeze it can go near super sonic (630 mph)

"The highest estimate I found came from the JFK Health World Museum in Barrington Illinois who claim that a sneeze can go as fast as 85% of the speed of sound or approximately 630 miles per hour."---------
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-09/938695934.Gb.r.html

If this is true, then think of a giant human with better reinforced breathing tube, with biological adaptation.

 

[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.

jarednjames, I said "same principle do not always apply same way to both Engineering & Biology", you forgot to mention this "same way" in your quote

 

[JaredJames]

jarednjames, I said "same principle do not always apply same way to both Engineering & Biology", you forgot to mention this "same way" in your quote

They apply identically.

 

[JaredJames]

Of course adaptation capability is limited by physics--- And I am not denying that, What I am arguing is the procedure to determine that limit (which is definitely not just a high school math job) and the factors to be considered for this purpose.

Tell me what will be the limit of air flow rate/ speed inside breathing tube? As far I know, when people sneeze it can go near super sonic (630 mph)

"The highest estimate I found came from the JFK Health World Museum in Barrington Illinois who claim that a sneeze can go as fast as 85% of the speed of sound or approximately 630 miles per hour."---------
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-09/938695934.Gb.r.html

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:

the data collected from the 147th episode of Mythbusters titled 'Flu Fiction', concluded that the speed is closer to 35-40 mph

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

This is all highly irrelevant though as 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.

 

[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.