Giant human like 30 to 90 ft tall possible or not

  • Thread starter anas101
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Human
In Summary, the conversation discussed the possibility of giant humans ranging from 30 to 90 feet tall. It was mentioned that increasing the size of an organism would result in changes to its shape and other body properties due to the square cube law. The conversation also delved into the topic of evolutionary changes and limitations on human size, such as lung capacity and bone strength. It was noted that past a certain point, it would not be possible for a human to grow any larger due to these limiting factors. The possibility of humans growing to such a size in an environment similar to the time of dinosaurs was also discussed. Finally, it was mentioned that given
  • #36
jarednjames said:
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.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #37
crowbird2 said:
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.
 
  • #38
crowbird2 said:
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.
 
  • #39
jarednjames said:
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.

jarednjames said:
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.
 
  • #40
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.
 
  • #41
Hellohi said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #42
crowbird2 said:
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.
 
  • #43
crowbird2 said:
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.
 
  • #44
Borek said:
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
 
Last edited:
  • #45
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.
 
  • #46
crowbird2 said:
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.
 
  • #47
Borek said:
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.
 
  • #48
jarednjames said:
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 :smile:
 
  • #49
crowbird2 said:
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 :smile:

They apply identically.
 
  • #50
crowbird2 said:
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.
 
  • #51
jarednjames said:
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 said:
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.
 
  • #52
crowbird2 said:
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.
 
  • #53
jarednjames said:
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.
 
  • #54
crowbird2 said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #55
jarednjames said:
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?
 
  • #56
crowbird2 said:
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.
 
  • #57
jarednjames said:
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.
 
  • #58
crowbird2 said:
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?
 
  • #59
jarednjames said:
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.
 
  • #60
crowbird2 said:
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.
 
  • #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 [Broken] almost as fast as speed of sound
----By Dr. Terry Gaff[/URL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #62
crowbird2 said:
Well, may be this link will be little more reliable to you than the previous link:

"[URL [Broken] 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.
 
<h2>1. Is it scientifically possible for humans to grow to heights of 30 to 90 feet?</h2><p>Currently, there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that humans could grow to such extreme heights. The tallest recorded human was Robert Wadlow, who stood at 8 feet 11 inches. This is due to the limitations of our genetic makeup and the physical constraints of our bodies.</p><h2>2. Are there any known cases of humans reaching heights close to 30 to 90 feet?</h2><p>No, there are no documented cases of humans reaching heights anywhere near 30 to 90 feet. As mentioned before, the tallest recorded human was just under 9 feet, and even that is considered extremely rare. Any claims of humans reaching such heights are most likely false or exaggerated.</p><h2>3. Could advancements in technology or medicine make it possible for humans to grow to 30 to 90 feet?</h2><p>While technology and medicine have certainly advanced, there is no indication that it could lead to humans growing to such extreme heights. Our bodies are limited by our genetic makeup and any attempts to alter that could have serious consequences. Additionally, our bones and muscles would not be able to support such a massive frame.</p><h2>4. Are there any other species that can grow to heights of 30 to 90 feet?</h2><p>Yes, there are several species that can grow to heights of 30 to 90 feet, such as giraffes and certain types of trees. However, these species have evolved to be able to support their height and have different genetic makeup than humans. It is not possible for humans to reach these heights without significant changes to our biology.</p><h2>5. What are the potential dangers of humans growing to 30 to 90 feet tall?</h2><p>If it were somehow possible for humans to grow to such extreme heights, there would be numerous dangers and challenges. Our bodies would not be able to support our weight, leading to serious health issues such as joint problems and heart strain. Our environment and infrastructure are also not designed for such massive beings, making it difficult for us to move and function in society.</p>

1. Is it scientifically possible for humans to grow to heights of 30 to 90 feet?

Currently, there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that humans could grow to such extreme heights. The tallest recorded human was Robert Wadlow, who stood at 8 feet 11 inches. This is due to the limitations of our genetic makeup and the physical constraints of our bodies.

2. Are there any known cases of humans reaching heights close to 30 to 90 feet?

No, there are no documented cases of humans reaching heights anywhere near 30 to 90 feet. As mentioned before, the tallest recorded human was just under 9 feet, and even that is considered extremely rare. Any claims of humans reaching such heights are most likely false or exaggerated.

3. Could advancements in technology or medicine make it possible for humans to grow to 30 to 90 feet?

While technology and medicine have certainly advanced, there is no indication that it could lead to humans growing to such extreme heights. Our bodies are limited by our genetic makeup and any attempts to alter that could have serious consequences. Additionally, our bones and muscles would not be able to support such a massive frame.

4. Are there any other species that can grow to heights of 30 to 90 feet?

Yes, there are several species that can grow to heights of 30 to 90 feet, such as giraffes and certain types of trees. However, these species have evolved to be able to support their height and have different genetic makeup than humans. It is not possible for humans to reach these heights without significant changes to our biology.

5. What are the potential dangers of humans growing to 30 to 90 feet tall?

If it were somehow possible for humans to grow to such extreme heights, there would be numerous dangers and challenges. Our bodies would not be able to support our weight, leading to serious health issues such as joint problems and heart strain. Our environment and infrastructure are also not designed for such massive beings, making it difficult for us to move and function in society.

Similar threads

  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
21
Views
852
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
14
Views
6K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
10
Views
3K
Writing: Input Wanted Great Lakes Earth Map
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
36
Views
12K
Writing: Read Only Great Lakes Earth
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
1
Views
3K
Back
Top