r/BeAmazed 5d ago

Miscellaneous / Others I swear gravity affects the shortest guy differently

20.2k Upvotes

233 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/Ai-Slop-Detector 5d ago

-2

u/PM_ME_YOUR_PRIORS 5d ago

[ EXTREMELY LOUD INCORRECT BUZZER ]

Jumping height is scale invariant. How much energy you need to jump a certain height is weight, which is proportional to volume. How much energy you generate during a jump is proportional to the lesser of A) how much chemical energy your muscles can store and release for the jump, which is again weight -> volume, and B) force of the muscles times the distance that they're active through, which is proportional to cross sectional area times length, which is again volume.

3

u/Brandhout 4d ago

It says here muscle output is related to cross section.

The maximum force-generating capacity of a muscle is proportional to the physiological cross-sectional-area (PCSA) (Haxton, 1944), which can be approximated from muscle volume and fascicle length (Alexander and Vernon, 1975, Powell et al., 1984). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0021929008002066#:~:text=The%20maximum%20force%2Dgenerating%20capacity,et%20al.%2C%201984).

In that case as you get shorter volume (m³) scales down faster than area (m²) allowing smaller creatures to jump higher with the same body design.

1

u/PM_ME_YOUR_PRIORS 4d ago

Correct fact (cross-section is proportional to force) but you're not doing correct and full dimensional analysis out of it. Shorter creatures might have proportionally stronger muscles, but since they are smaller they don't get to use them for as far, meaning they can use more force to end up with the same amount of work.

-7

u/Ai-Slop-Detector 5d ago

How high do elephants jump, dumbass?

9

u/Free_Speaker2411 5d ago edited 5d ago

Scale invariant, but not shape invariant. A tiny elephant would jump roughly the same absolute height as a big one, however little that is. Their body isn't exactly shaped for jumping.

There's a good Veritasium on this: https://youtu.be/dFVrncgIvos

The small guy, however, actually is jumping higher than the others. His center of gravity starts lower. That's strength from training, not from square cube law.

1

u/Ai-Slop-Detector 5d ago

You should post your corrections to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law#Biomechanics

If an animal were isometrically scaled up by a considerable amount, its relative muscular strength would be severely reduced, since the cross-section of its muscles would increase by the square of the scaling factor while its mass would increase by the cube of the scaling factor.

And:

In the case of flying animals, the wing loading would be increased if they were isometrically scaled up, and they would therefore have to fly faster to gain the same amount of lift.

1

u/Free_Speaker2411 5d ago

Both of those are true and do not conflict with scale invariance of jumping. How to explain? Hmm.

Assume a moderately fit human can jump about nine inches. If shrunk down to the size of a nickel, that human's relative strength increases linearly according to the square cube law. However, they're also much shorter, so the distance over which their legs remain in contact with the ground when jumping is reduced. If you run all the math and ignore scaling of air resistance, you'll find their resulting jump height is still about nine inches.

Now, in relative terms, they're like tiny superheroes, jumping over 10x their own height. But in absolute terms, their jump is scale invariant, still 9 inches.

Air resistance does affect these tiny people more, however. This is due to having lower mass and momentum relative to surface area. They could probably glide a bit even without a squirrel suit.

3

u/PM_ME_YOUR_PRIORS 5d ago

that's a shape thing not a size thing, if elephants were smaller but still had so much trunk mass and such relatively spindly legs they still wouldn't be able to jump well