Hatrack River Forum: Dinosaurs and square-cubed law

This is topic Dinosaurs and square-cubed law in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=040585

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

In a recent thread, starLisa claimed

quote:
I would, by contrast, say that dinosaurs could never have lived under the current effective gravitational field, because the cube-square law simply wouldn't allow it, and that something must have been different here when dinosaurs were around. I don't say "I believe" at the beginning of that, because I've seen the numbers, and it's just a matter of plain fact.

Wrong.

Thank you for playing.

Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :

Not that I disagree... but shouldn't this have gone in said recent thread?

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

It was closed. For reasons, I hasten to add, completely unrelated to any evolution-creation acrimony.

Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :

What about the Time Cube law?

Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :

Wow, they've added a lot to time cube since the last time I looked at it. Several points worth of font size, for one thing.

--Enigmatic

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

I dunno, does it say anything about dinosaurs?

Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :

Holy crapulance, that was painful to read, Strider. I was kind of with him (I assume the writer was a him because he thought of castrating scientists as the worst possible punishment) on the opposites thing. Then the four simultaneous days thing came out and then a lot of angry ranting. How odd. Can anyone explain this more coherently?

Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :

I went and slammed my head against the wall a few times to make it feel better, and it woke up my neighbor who started yelling racial slurs at me, and this also made my head feel better. Then I went and read some more. Man am I dumb.

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :

Time Cube makes it all better.

If you tire of arguing with someone, you can just sit and bask in the glow of the Cubepage. There, the utter meaninglessness of arguing with someone who is irrational will fill you with a pure, careless light. [Big Grin]

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :

quote:
I bestow upon myself the "Doctorate of
Cubicism", for educators are ignorant of
Nature's Harmonic Time Cube Principle
and cannot bestow the prestigious honor
of wisdom upon the wisest human ever.

Dr. Gene Ray

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

Making fun of the mentally ill... what have we come to?

I remember in college, someone used to compile these xeroxes patched together from rants like this. He went on about Reagan and Pennsylvania Dutch, and it had the same schizo tone as the TimeCube page. I wonder what sent Gene Ray over the edge.

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :

Arguing on the net, likely.

Edited to add: Of course, YMMV.

Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :

Apparently we're all stupid and evil, except Dr. Gene Ray. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :

No, you are alleducated stupid.

Obviously.

[Hail]

TimeCube

-Bok

Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :

quote:
Time Cube proves a 1 face god impossible,
due to 4 corner face metamorphic human -
baby, child, parent and grandparent faces.

Doesn't a cube have six faces? I think Time Cube has broken my brain. Again. And I hadn't visited since the second page was added.

Anyone up for creating a m alternative involving triangles and declaring war on the time cube?

"The universe can be defined as a shape involving three planes of equal sides. Our inability to mentally picture this element is the reason behind our failure to comprehend all the realities that surround us."

Hmm, may have to add in a few evils and more severe profanities to make it more popular...

Feyd Baron, DoC

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Strider:
What about the Time Cube law?

Don't mock a Nobel Prize winner.

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :

... I give up, its 1:13 PM I can't function right, its too hard to read. Watching 30 episodes of red vs blue in a row does that to you.

Can some1 explain in laymans terms whats that all about? All ig to out of it so far was that the maximum size ted came up with was exceeded on an individual basis.

Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :

Lisa,

That is just beautiful. just beautiful.

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :

"Can some1 explain in laymans terms whats that all about? All ig to out of it so far was that the maximum size ted came up with was exceeded on an individual basis"

Basically, mass goes up as a cubic function while surface area goes up as a square function, so you can't just scale a small thing up and expect it to function at larger sizes. This guy Ted took that fact and decided the maximum mass of something is X lbs.

This maximum is incorrect, because large things in nature aren't just scaled up versions of small things.

More importantly, for the purpose of this thread, there's no theoretical reason why you can't have something a LOT bigger then an elephant.

Or was that too much summary and not enough detail? [Smile]

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :

Indeed, the final result would be better with a little tad but more details.