So specifically how does the brontosaurus fit into scaling laws that show that the largest land animal on Earth is a at the moment is an elephant and yet the brontosaurus is several times larger than a than a large elephant? If we pause it that Earth's mass has changed over time we can presume that g is a variable in this elementary biological mathematics. That being the case what fractional multiplier of G best fits what we know about scaling in biology for the brontosaurus?
Somebody claimed theoretical maximum for a mammal is 109 metric tonnes, but ofc insufficient info this is... Unless you just derive and design a proportional and structurally valid thing based on that and then compare it to what is known of brontosaurus e.g. It's bones. You could probably derive some required bone densities etc just by these calculations and comparing it to a living mammal like elephant with considerations of the volume-area ratios. Then see if it's valid number. I don't really think any small fractions of delta in g is anything else but trivial.. Might be wrong. Maybe a meaningful variable in other scales where like 0.2% makes a huge nominal difference in something idk.
So specifically how does the brontosaurus fit into scaling laws that show that the largest land animal on Earth is a at the moment is an elephant and yet the brontosaurus is several times larger than a than a large elephant? If we pause it that Earth's mass has changed over time we can presume that g is a variable in this elementary biological mathematics. That being the case what fractional multiplier of G best fits what we know about scaling in biology for the brontosaurus?
Huh?
Somebody claimed theoretical maximum for a mammal is 109 metric tonnes, but ofc insufficient info this is...
Unless you just derive and design a proportional and structurally valid thing based on that and then compare it to what is known of brontosaurus e.g. It's bones.
You could probably derive some required bone densities etc just by these calculations and comparing it to a living mammal like elephant with considerations of the volume-area ratios. Then see if it's valid number.
I don't really think any small fractions of delta in g is anything else but trivial.. Might be wrong. Maybe a meaningful variable in other scales where like 0.2% makes a huge nominal difference in something idk.
Helpful for a basic description of allometry.
So helpful thank you!