Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 ThePrimordial wrote:
Okay so everyone knows that ants would be tremendously weak at human size, able to lift about 20 pounds and a man being able to literally beat their brains in.
But there's a beetle that can lift 20 pounds at it's size of a couple ounces.........
Cube Square wouldn't do much to something that's that strong and already that big.
How strong would something that big be if we upped it to weigh the same as a 225 pound man, and accounted for cubed square.
Assuming that at 6 inches long it weighs 3.2 ounces (most of the length is horn and while the females are bigger they are also a lot weaker)
A rough estimation would have it being immune to small arms and tossing people around like basketballs.

You...
You really don't know what mathematics is do you?

Mathematics is the art of typing things into a calculator... where's my gold star????

 Ouze wrote:

That's it?

Wait till you see this:



Damn nature. You scary.

 purplefood wrote:
7'6" isn't upscaled for a human...
That said, you can see examples of the largest specimens of humanity having trouble breathing (Or rather breathing doesn't give them enough oxygen) because they are so large. Such people also have heart problems due tot heir size.

I think the tallest human ever was 8'11.
Assuming you kept in a well muscled but thin shape at 7'6 I don't think you'd have problems with anything.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Krellnus wrote:

 ThePrimordial wrote:
Okay so everyone knows that ants would be tremendously weak at human size, able to lift about 20 pounds and a man being able to literally beat their brains in.
But there's a beetle that can lift 20 pounds at it's size of a couple ounces.........
Cube Square wouldn't do much to something that's that strong and already that big.
How strong would something that big be if we upped it to weigh the same as a 225 pound man, and accounted for cubed square.
Assuming that at 6 inches long it weighs 3.2 ounces (most of the length is horn and while the females are bigger they are also a lot weaker)
A rough estimation would have it being immune to small arms and tossing people around like basketballs.

You...
You really don't know what mathematics is do you?

With minor changes to anatomy and assuming this thing was in prehistoric periods so as to have enough oxygen, it'd be far stronger than a human.
Ants still wouldn't collapse under their own weight at our size, so going purely by math means the beetle would be relatively functional at human size with enough oxygen.

The point is 'enough oxygen' it's not even minor anatomical changes. You'd be talking about a major redesign of its circulatory and respiratory systems. Even if it did have enough oxygen to survive I remember reading somewhere that chitin, when scaled up to our scale, becomes incredibly fragile.

 ThePrimordial wrote:

 Krellnus wrote:

 ThePrimordial wrote:
Okay so everyone knows that ants would be tremendously weak at human size, able to lift about 20 pounds and a man being able to literally beat their brains in.
But there's a beetle that can lift 20 pounds at it's size of a couple ounces.........
Cube Square wouldn't do much to something that's that strong and already that big.
How strong would something that big be if we upped it to weigh the same as a 225 pound man, and accounted for cubed square.
Assuming that at 6 inches long it weighs 3.2 ounces (most of the length is horn and while the females are bigger they are also a lot weaker)
A rough estimation would have it being immune to small arms and tossing people around like basketballs.

You...
You really don't know what mathematics is do you?

With minor changes to anatomy and assuming this thing was in prehistoric periods so as to have enough oxygen, it'd be far stronger than a human.
Ants still wouldn't collapse under their own weight at our size, so going purely by math means the beetle would be relatively functional at human size with enough oxygen.

Sure, if by minor anatomical changes, you mean redesigning its respiratory and circulatory systems from the ground up then sure.
Yes, an ant would be crushed by its own weight if scaled up to human size.

Say for example an ant is 3mm long (3x10^-3m long)
A human is (going by population averages) 180cm long when laid down on their side (1.8m)

This means that scaling up an ant to human size means increasing its size by 1.8m/3x10^-3m = 600 times

Now we know that a creature's strength is determined by its musculture which is ultimatley a fuction of its surface area and a creature's weight is ultimatley a function of volume.

By increasing an ant's size 600times, you are increasing its musculture by 600^2 = 360 000 (3.6x10^5) times but you are also increasing its weight by 600^3 = 216 000 000 (2.16x10^8) times
which reduces its effective musculture to weight ratio to 3.6x10^5/2.16x10^8 = 0.00166~ which is just over one thounsandth of what it has at normal size.

I think we give spiders a hard time...



In saying that...



...nope

What spider is that? The big one I mean?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
What spider is that? The big one I mean?

Scary. Also, if I see it, very, very, very dead. By someone else's hand, obviously; I'd be in a foetal position in the corner, rocking back and forth, sucking my thumb, muttering to myself, and switching between uncontrollable bursts of maniacal laughter and insane crying - all of which is pretty normal for me, except there'd be a fething great spider there, too.

It is a little known historical fact that the flamethrower was invented not for war, but as a spider extermination method.

This is what the ban in flamethrowers resulted in:



Only in Australia...

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
It is a little known historical fact that the flamethrower was invented not for war, but as a spider extermination method.

This is what the ban in flamethrowers resulted in:



Only in Australia...

Well, or in Japan.

Don't you mean Pakistan?

No?

After the tsunami in Japan all the ground dwelling spiders went into the trees with some rather... odd.. results.

As an added bonus, they also prevented the huge outbreak of malaria from all the mosquito's that would've come out of all the new puddles.

 Soladrin wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
It is a little known historical fact that the flamethrower was invented not for war, but as a spider extermination method.

This is what the ban in flamethrowers resulted in:



Only in Australia...

Well, or in Japan.

That kid near the tree gives no feths...

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
It is a little known historical fact that the flamethrower was invented not for war, but as a spider extermination method.

This is what the ban in flamethrowers resulted in:



Only in Australia...

Well, or in Japan.

That kid near the tree gives no feths...

Are all these trees completely covered in spiderwebs...

Yep.

 Soladrin wrote:
No?

After the tsunami in Japan all the ground dwelling spiders went into the trees with some rather... odd.. results.

As an added bonus, they also prevented the huge outbreak of malaria from all the mosquito's that would've come out of all the new puddles.

I only ask because the image says pakistan-floods-drive-spiders-into-trees-children XD So did someone mislabel their photo? I do remember reading something like this in Japan though XD I just found the image name odd.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
No?

After the tsunami in Japan all the ground dwelling spiders went into the trees with some rather... odd.. results.

As an added bonus, they also prevented the huge outbreak of malaria from all the mosquito's that would've come out of all the new puddles.

I only ask because the image says pakistan-floods-drive-spiders-into-trees-children XD So did someone mislabel their photo? I do remember reading something like this in Japan though XD I just found the image name odd.

I found where the pictures are from, and the nat geo article does indeed say it's in Pakistan.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/03/pictures/110331-pakistan-flood-spider-trees-webs/#/pakistan-floods-drive-spiders-into-trees-children_34027_600x450.jpg

 Krellnus wrote:

 ThePrimordial wrote:

 Krellnus wrote:

 ThePrimordial wrote:
Okay so everyone knows that ants would be tremendously weak at human size, able to lift about 20 pounds and a man being able to literally beat their brains in.
But there's a beetle that can lift 20 pounds at it's size of a couple ounces.........
Cube Square wouldn't do much to something that's that strong and already that big.
How strong would something that big be if we upped it to weigh the same as a 225 pound man, and accounted for cubed square.
Assuming that at 6 inches long it weighs 3.2 ounces (most of the length is horn and while the females are bigger they are also a lot weaker)
A rough estimation would have it being immune to small arms and tossing people around like basketballs.

You...
You really don't know what mathematics is do you?

With minor changes to anatomy and assuming this thing was in prehistoric periods so as to have enough oxygen, it'd be far stronger than a human.
Ants still wouldn't collapse under their own weight at our size, so going purely by math means the beetle would be relatively functional at human size with enough oxygen.

Sure, if by minor anatomical changes, you mean redesigning its respiratory and circulatory systems from the ground up then sure.
Yes, an ant would be crushed by its own weight if scaled up to human size.

Say for example an ant is 3mm long (3x10^-3m long)
A human is (going by population averages) 180cm long when laid down on their side (1.8m)

This means that scaling up an ant to human size means increasing its size by 1.8m/3x10^-3m = 600 times

Now we know that a creature's strength is determined by its musculture which is ultimatley a fuction of its surface area and a creature's weight is ultimatley a function of volume.

By increasing an ant's size 600times, you are increasing its musculture by 600^2 = 360 000 (3.6x10^5) times but you are also increasing its weight by 600^3 = 216 000 000 (2.16x10^8) times
which reduces its effective musculture to weight ratio to 3.6x10^5/2.16x10^8 = 0.00166~ which is just over one thounsandth of what it has at normal size.

This means that the Hercules beetle at 1/1200th the weight of humans instead of 1/10millionth (according to math the beetle is enourmously stronger by muscle not by being smaller) would be crushed under its own weight as well?
The beetle wouldn't be crushed under its own weight. We can be sure of this. It would also be stronger than a similarily strong human. We can be sure of this as well.
It would need 100's of litres of oxygen and its legs would need to be thicker.
While it would be very fragile however due to chitin, it would still be stronger.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
No?

After the tsunami in Japan all the ground dwelling spiders went into the trees with some rather... odd.. results.

As an added bonus, they also prevented the huge outbreak of malaria from all the mosquito's that would've come out of all the new puddles.

I only ask because the image says pakistan-floods-drive-spiders-into-trees-children XD So did someone mislabel their photo? I do remember reading something like this in Japan though XD I just found the image name odd.

I found where the pictures are from, and the nat geo article does indeed say it's in Pakistan.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/03/pictures/110331-pakistan-flood-spider-trees-webs/#/pakistan-floods-drive-spiders-into-trees-children_34027_600x450.jpg

Kay, I just googled for japan on this issue and picked the first one I found. So apparently, this always happens with floods.

If the Hercules Beetle interbreeds with the Bombardier Beetle we are all screwed.

Totally screwed.

 LordofHats wrote:


Totally screwed.

I'm assuming this is from a Syfy original movie. What's it called?

See! This sort of gak wouldn't happen if we had flamethrowers and fat man launchers!

@Primordial

Starship troopers. It is not related to the book, despite what everyone would tell you.

 ThePrimordial wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:


Totally screwed.

I'm assuming this is from a Syfy original movie. What's it called?

Crawl back under the rock you came from.

 Soladrin wrote:

 ThePrimordial wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:


Totally screwed.

I'm assuming this is from a Syfy original movie. What's it called?

Crawl back under the rock you came from.

He's clearly one of the insects! That's why he's asking about these sorts of things.

 ThePrimordial wrote:

 Krellnus wrote:

 ThePrimordial wrote:

 Krellnus wrote:

 ThePrimordial wrote:
Okay so everyone knows that ants would be tremendously weak at human size, able to lift about 20 pounds and a man being able to literally beat their brains in.
But there's a beetle that can lift 20 pounds at it's size of a couple ounces.........
Cube Square wouldn't do much to something that's that strong and already that big.
How strong would something that big be if we upped it to weigh the same as a 225 pound man, and accounted for cubed square.
Assuming that at 6 inches long it weighs 3.2 ounces (most of the length is horn and while the females are bigger they are also a lot weaker)
A rough estimation would have it being immune to small arms and tossing people around like basketballs.

You...
You really don't know what mathematics is do you?

With minor changes to anatomy and assuming this thing was in prehistoric periods so as to have enough oxygen, it'd be far stronger than a human.
Ants still wouldn't collapse under their own weight at our size, so going purely by math means the beetle would be relatively functional at human size with enough oxygen.

Sure, if by minor anatomical changes, you mean redesigning its respiratory and circulatory systems from the ground up then sure.
Yes, an ant would be crushed by its own weight if scaled up to human size.

Say for example an ant is 3mm long (3x10^-3m long)
A human is (going by population averages) 180cm long when laid down on their side (1.8m)

This means that scaling up an ant to human size means increasing its size by 1.8m/3x10^-3m = 600 times

Now we know that a creature's strength is determined by its musculture which is ultimatley a fuction of its surface area and a creature's weight is ultimatley a function of volume.

By increasing an ant's size 600times, you are increasing its musculture by 600^2 = 360 000 (3.6x10^5) times but you are also increasing its weight by 600^3 = 216 000 000 (2.16x10^8) times
which reduces its effective musculture to weight ratio to 3.6x10^5/2.16x10^8 = 0.00166~ which is just over one thounsandth of what it has at normal size.

This means that the Hercules beetle at 1/1200th the weight of humans instead of 1/10millionth (according to math the beetle is enourmously stronger by muscle not by being smaller) would be crushed under its own weight as well?
The beetle wouldn't be crushed under its own weight. We can be sure of this. It would also be stronger than a similarily strong human. We can be sure of this as well.
It would need 100's of litres of oxygen and its legs would need to be thicker.
While it would be very fragile however due to chitin, it would still be stronger.

Can you stop asking a question only to literally straight after assume your own answer?
It is not a question of how much oxygen a scaled up insect needs, but how fast it can get it. Diffusion is a very slow transport process, why do you think that we have lungs as opposed to spiracles, the fact of the matter is, once you get past the size of a small bird, regardless of your metabolic rate, you need some form of active transport to move around nutrients and absorb oxygen, there are no ifs or buts about it.

The best statement you could say, is if a human had similar levels of relative strength to a hercules beetle it could do whatever, but that statement is not the same as saying what you are saying.

Also the statment about being immune to small arms is also patently false.

 Soladrin wrote:

 ThePrimordial wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:


Totally screwed.

I'm assuming this is from a Syfy original movie. What's it called?

Crawl back under the rock you came from.

Do you know what Berserk or Black Lagoon are?
If not you can crawl back into your mothers womb because you still haven't seen the light.
Or rather monsters dismembered in creative ways and tarantino esque mafia action respectively.
I'm not a film buff, I apologize.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Krellnus wrote:

 ThePrimordial wrote:

 Krellnus wrote:

 ThePrimordial wrote:

 Krellnus wrote:

 ThePrimordial wrote:
Okay so everyone knows that ants would be tremendously weak at human size, able to lift about 20 pounds and a man being able to literally beat their brains in.
But there's a beetle that can lift 20 pounds at it's size of a couple ounces.........
Cube Square wouldn't do much to something that's that strong and already that big.
How strong would something that big be if we upped it to weigh the same as a 225 pound man, and accounted for cubed square.
Assuming that at 6 inches long it weighs 3.2 ounces (most of the length is horn and while the females are bigger they are also a lot weaker)
A rough estimation would have it being immune to small arms and tossing people around like basketballs.

You...
You really don't know what mathematics is do you?

With minor changes to anatomy and assuming this thing was in prehistoric periods so as to have enough oxygen, it'd be far stronger than a human.
Ants still wouldn't collapse under their own weight at our size, so going purely by math means the beetle would be relatively functional at human size with enough oxygen.

Sure, if by minor anatomical changes, you mean redesigning its respiratory and circulatory systems from the ground up then sure.
Yes, an ant would be crushed by its own weight if scaled up to human size.

Say for example an ant is 3mm long (3x10^-3m long)
A human is (going by population averages) 180cm long when laid down on their side (1.8m)

This means that scaling up an ant to human size means increasing its size by 1.8m/3x10^-3m = 600 times

Now we know that a creature's strength is determined by its musculture which is ultimatley a fuction of its surface area and a creature's weight is ultimatley a function of volume.

By increasing an ant's size 600times, you are increasing its musculture by 600^2 = 360 000 (3.6x10^5) times but you are also increasing its weight by 600^3 = 216 000 000 (2.16x10^8) times
which reduces its effective musculture to weight ratio to 3.6x10^5/2.16x10^8 = 0.00166~ which is just over one thounsandth of what it has at normal size.

This means that the Hercules beetle at 1/1200th the weight of humans instead of 1/10millionth (according to math the beetle is enourmously stronger by muscle not by being smaller) would be crushed under its own weight as well?
The beetle wouldn't be crushed under its own weight. We can be sure of this. It would also be stronger than a similarily strong human. We can be sure of this as well.
It would need 100's of litres of oxygen and its legs would need to be thicker.
While it would be very fragile however due to chitin, it would still be stronger.

Can you stop asking a question only to literally straight after assume your own answer?
It is not a question of how much oxygen a scaled up insect needs, but how fast it can get it. Diffusion is a very slow transport process, why do you think that we have lungs as opposed to spiracles, the fact of the matter is, once you get past the size of a small bird, regardless of your metabolic rate, you need some form of active transport to move around nutrients and absorb oxygen, there are no ifs or buts about it.

The best statement you could say, is if a human had similar levels of relative strength to a hercules beetle it could do whatever, but that statement is not the same as saying what you are saying.

Also the statment about being immune to small arms is also patently false.

It was a question simply meant to cement my view not be answered.
I literally have no idea how you could not understand this.
I looked into this more and yes unless this thing was being shoved full of oxygen it would die pretty quickly.
it would need a very strong heart, rhino esque skin to replace the chitin, thicker legs, whale efficiency lungs, a mammal esque respiratory system.... the list goes on and on.
I understand this now, I looked into this now. I'm an engineer, not a biologist. An electrical engineer at that. I only have to deal with the weight to muscle aspects of engineering whereas there's a lot more to this when upscaling animals.

I've watched every episode of Berserk, read every chapter of the manga (that's out) and watched all 3 movies. So please go somewhere else with your would be insults.

... And black lagoon was fun but too short, did they ever make a proper season 3?

 Soladrin wrote:
I've watched every episode of Berserk, read every chapter of the manga (that's out) and watched all 3 movies. So please go somewhere else with your would be insults.

... And black lagoon was fun but too short, did they ever make a proper season 3?

Sadly, no. Just an OVA that to my knowledge still does not have a dubbed version.