Giant human like 30 to 90 ft tall possible or not

  • Thread starter Thread starter anas101
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Human
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the feasibility of giant human-like beings ranging from 30 to 90 feet tall, exploring the implications of size on physiology and biology. Participants examine theoretical limits based on physical laws, evolutionary adaptations, and environmental conditions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference the square-cube law, suggesting that increasing size affects structural integrity and physiological functions, such as oxygen absorption through lung surface area.
  • Others argue that simply scaling up human anatomy does not account for the limitations imposed by bone strength and other biological factors.
  • A participant questions why humans grow, proposing that if environmental conditions were different (e.g., lower gravity), larger humans might be possible.
  • Some suggest that historical atmospheric conditions, such as higher oxygen levels during the time of dinosaurs, allowed for larger life forms, implying that similar conditions could enable larger humans.
  • There is a discussion about the necessity of evolutionary changes to support increased size, with some asserting that a 30-foot tall human would not retain human characteristics.
  • One participant mentions that a malfunction in growth regulation could lead to excessive growth, but this would not represent a viable or healthy human form.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus. There are multiple competing views regarding the possibility of giant humans, with some emphasizing biological limitations and others suggesting that altered conditions could allow for larger sizes.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations related to current physiological understanding and evolutionary biology, as well as the dependence on environmental factors that may influence size and growth.

  • #61
jarednjames said:
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]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #62
crowbird2 said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
This has gone on long enough.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
7K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
9K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
17K