Godzilla and Kong Keep Growing. But They're No Match for Physics (wired.co.uk) 56
Both monsters have grown in size over the years, and they reach new heights in Godzilla vs. Kong. But could they ever exist in real life? From a report: The last time the pair squared off, in the 1962 Japanese stop-motion release King Kong vs. Godzilla, Kong was 148 feet tall, compared to just 25ft tall in Peter Jackson's 2005 film King Kong, according to online estimates. In 2017's Kong: Skull Island, the great primate was around 104ft; almost four times smaller than the current iteration of Godzilla, who clocks in at 393ft. While the skeletons of Kong's parents in Skull Island suggest 100ft is roughly their species' genetic limit, the producers of the series have retconned the franchise by explaining that Kong is an adolescent in that film, leaving room for him to grow into a worthy opponent for Godzilla some 40 years down the movie timeline. Scaling up Kong to match Godzilla makes sense. It would be a short film if Godzilla stomped the big ape to death in the opening minutes. But how does that explain Godzilla's own growth spurt from 328ft in 2014 to 393ft today? And, crucially, is any of this based in science?
There are some things the films get right. James Rosindell from the faculty of natural sciences at Imperial College London points to a theory called 'Cope's Rule' which holds that evolution will increase a species body size over time. "[Being larger] gives competitive advantages and is often naturally selected for," he explains. However, larger creatures need more food and typically reproduce at a slower rate, meaning few individuals can be supported by any one ecosystem. So Kong and Godzilla being the last of their species -- and Kong slowly maturing over 40 years -- fits the science. But that's about the only thing that holds together. It turns out that Godzilla and Kong's biggest foe may not be each other, but physics. Specifically, the laws of gravity and biomechanics. The largest animal alive today, the blue whale, is found in our oceans. "The size limit of aquatic animals is closely tied to the ability to eat enough food to sustain their chonky bodies," explains David Labonte, a researcher in the department of bioengineering, also at Imperial College. Labonte has a specific interest in the interaction between physical laws and body size. For example, why there are no climbing animals heavier than geckos that can cling upside down to smooth surfaces? When it comes to the blue whale, Labonte explains that their large mouths and a technique known as 'lunge feeding' enables them to obtain enough food to sustain their bodies. This has allowed some blue whales to grow up to 180 tonnes (Kong was around 158 tonnes in his last film). An aquatic environment bestows other advantages, namely, buoyancy. Having its weight suspended in water is one of the key reasons why the blue whale is able to grow so large. It's also the reason that when whales beach, the most common cause of death is internal damage from the weight of their own bodies. Gravity, then, is a problem our terrestrial animals are yet to overcome. It's the reason our largest land animal, the African elephant tips the scales at a relatively puny six tonnes.
There are some things the films get right. James Rosindell from the faculty of natural sciences at Imperial College London points to a theory called 'Cope's Rule' which holds that evolution will increase a species body size over time. "[Being larger] gives competitive advantages and is often naturally selected for," he explains. However, larger creatures need more food and typically reproduce at a slower rate, meaning few individuals can be supported by any one ecosystem. So Kong and Godzilla being the last of their species -- and Kong slowly maturing over 40 years -- fits the science. But that's about the only thing that holds together. It turns out that Godzilla and Kong's biggest foe may not be each other, but physics. Specifically, the laws of gravity and biomechanics. The largest animal alive today, the blue whale, is found in our oceans. "The size limit of aquatic animals is closely tied to the ability to eat enough food to sustain their chonky bodies," explains David Labonte, a researcher in the department of bioengineering, also at Imperial College. Labonte has a specific interest in the interaction between physical laws and body size. For example, why there are no climbing animals heavier than geckos that can cling upside down to smooth surfaces? When it comes to the blue whale, Labonte explains that their large mouths and a technique known as 'lunge feeding' enables them to obtain enough food to sustain their bodies. This has allowed some blue whales to grow up to 180 tonnes (Kong was around 158 tonnes in his last film). An aquatic environment bestows other advantages, namely, buoyancy. Having its weight suspended in water is one of the key reasons why the blue whale is able to grow so large. It's also the reason that when whales beach, the most common cause of death is internal damage from the weight of their own bodies. Gravity, then, is a problem our terrestrial animals are yet to overcome. It's the reason our largest land animal, the African elephant tips the scales at a relatively puny six tonnes.
Why is this on slashdot? (Score:1)
Re:Why is this on slashdot? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well you must be new because /. has always been "News for nerd and things that matter". A face off between fictional beasts from popular film is squarely located in nerd territory.
Re: Why is this on slashdot? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Its at least not as bad as the 40 year old virgins debating what Jeffreys tube takes you to medical.
What was the ultimate resolution of that debate?
Er... I'm asking for a friend.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd never take a Jeffreys tube to Medical... because Jeffreys tubes were for maintenance access, not regular movement around the ship.
Re: Why is this on slashdot? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet the idea that such creatures can exist seem to be ingrained in us. Maybe because we see hypothetical depictions of dinosaurs
Re: (Score:2)
Because even though we are educated in science, we are missing some basic fundamentals. One thing Galileo did was to show that increasing body size require a non linear increase in bone structure. So a chicken, a human, and a elephant do not simple require a linear increase in support. One implication of this is that giants as depicted in christian Bible simply could not exist.
Or they could exist, but are not simply scaled up versions of normal sized humans. We know for a fact hat 20 foot tall bipeds weighing twice as much as an elephant existed. So a humanoid that big is perfectly feasible, it just might have different proportions and thicker/stronger bones in some parts. Modifications to the circulatory system would be needed to avoid the heart problems that plague regular non-mythical giants. Also, we know that humans can get up to about 9 feet tall, which might qualify as a g
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear, I don't give much credence to biblical giant stories (at least the ones with giants that are bigger than the perfectly normal human giants we know exist). It's just that a simplistic application of the square-cube ratio does not really prove much in relation to most of those stories.
Re: (Score:3)
Square Cube Law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I understand the square cube law. That's not the point. The point is that people tend to take things like the square cube law and apply them simplistically to say that things can't exist (it's not just the square cube law, the laws of thermodynamics, especially the 2nd get abused this way all the time). The world is full of examples of people misapplying or at least poorly applying scientific principles to that end. For example, jet fuel supposedly not being able to burn hot enough to melt steel, which
Re: (Score:2)
It not being possible for anything larger than the largest birds to fly (that one due to the square cube law) which is obviously nonsense if you've ever seen a plane.
You kind of lost me here.
Re: (Score:2)
In the past, when powered flight was still futuristic, people speculated on whether it was possible. The argument was made in various quarters that nothing much larger than the largest birds could fly because the materials would not be able to withstand the forces involved. There were several arguments. One was that the required surface area of the wings would be too great relative to the size of the cabin due to the square-cube law. Also that the wing spars would not be able to withstand the forces of flap
Re: (Score:2)
So what?
Apples to oranges, mate.
You're basically reasoning that large earthly biological entities can just as well fly into outer space, because, you see, spaceships proved that it can be done.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I probably should also point out that it was before they discovered prehistoric creatures from the Mesozoic era larger than any extant bird that were still capable of flight, so it's not just human-made planes, but previously existing biological organisms that disprove the argument also exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, you are providing a very simplistic view of scientific data (more specifically, biomechanics).
Human giants can exist, but can't survive long enough to procreate, provide enough food for themselves, let alone others in the group/family and so on.
For an average human being, jumping down a 6 foot tall ledge is possible (albeit a bit risky). With enough care, you could do that numerous times with no accidents.
increase the size to a giant biped (sauropods), and suddenly you can no longer jump up (or down)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, you are providing a very simplistic view of scientific data (more specifically, biomechanics).
I'm not providing a simplistic view. I'm just pointing out what actually exists in nature. Can you point to where I'm being simplistic?
Human giants can exist, but can't survive long enough to procreate, provide enough food for themselves, let alone others in the group/family and so on.
What's your size limit for human giants who can exist but can't survive long enough to procreate, provide enough food for themselves, etc.? Is it larger and smaller than a tyrannosaurus? Larger or smaller than half a large sauropod? Why can't they survive long enough for all these things? You're not actually providing any reasons. I'll provide some for you. At some point, a
Re: (Score:2)
You are insinuating that Slashdot should be a place to discuss science and technology, not garbage. And that is the point of this article.
Those people who spend 100's of millions of dollars to make trashy stupid movies with been-there-seen-that bet-ya-didn't-know-we-have-cgi special effects are abusing science and technology to make effects that are incompatible with reality.
Good science fiction should respect the real world. Believable special effects should respect the laws of physics and chemistry. Ne
Re: (Score:2)
Making a movie true to the real science should be of interest to educated people.
There's the problem....a very small audience.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's news for nerds. Technology is not a requirement. And it doesn't get much nerdier than King Kong fighting Godzilla. ... Well a live action Evangelion may help but there's plenty of other mecha movies out there that keep us placated until that comes out.
Re: (Score:2)
Applying science to popular culture is about as nerdy as it gets.
Re: (Score:2)
Giants are a valid scientific subject. Galilei already looked into the subject of how things are affected by scale. Why elephants need fat legs. It's generally fun to use goofy subjects for serious science.
I still have a book somewhere called "The Physics of Star Trek".
Author's Soul is weight down by Gravity (Score:2)
*Too obscure?
No, None of this is based in Science (Score:2)
It is fantasy for watching while smoking a doobie, or after smoking many doobie's. They bear no relation to reality whatsoever and there is no intention for them to reflect any possible reality in any form whatsoever. It is purely Entertainment -- just like the WWE and the News Media (which all brand themselves as Entertainment, not as journalistic outlets).
Re: No, None of this is based in Science (Score:2)
Re: No, None of this is based in Science (Score:2)
A coworker explained pro-wrestling quite aptly.
"They're morality plays for the masses."
Re: (Score:2)
They are an apt reflection of US politics: equally fake, and both sides are paid by the same outfit at the end.
Re: (Score:2)
I do remember though as a kid reading about how to create a monster. And they started off by saying what if we took a beetle, or something like that and made it 50 feet tall. Then all the science kicked in. Get rid of the exoskeleton because it just won't work at that scale, it'll need an internal skeleton. Then the bones will break, so make the bones really thick. And how will it eat? Etc. Then end result had a creatiion that was very much like a large dinosaur.
Are you kidding me? (Score:3)
"Godzilla vs. Kong" is filled with cartoon physics from beginning to end, not the least of which is the entire Hollow Earth nonsense. This is not a film that is meant to be taken seriously in any way, shape, or form. It's a giant CGI monster battle with filler added to make it seem like a real movie.
Writing an article that points out that creatures the size of Godzilla and Kong couldn't exist according to the laws of physics makes about as much sense as the movie itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Writing an article that points out that creatures the size of Godzilla and Kong couldn't exist according to the laws of physics makes about as much sense as the movie itself.
Actually it's quite interesting reading about things on the edge of physics, precisely the things that people *don't* question. Hollow earth, anti-grav thrusters, all that bullshit is just scifi nonsense. How big can a creature get without having very real issues with reality, that is actually an interesting discussion.
But hey if you didn't like this article you must absolutely hate XKCD's What If section. Let me guess you click on this link https://what-if.xkcd.com/ [xkcd.com] and your first answer is "this is silly,
Re: (Score:2)
... not the least of which is the entire Hollow Earth nonsense
Exactly. How can the Earth be hollow when we all know it's flat?
They as massive as the plot requires them to be. (Score:3)
Ever notice? (Score:4, Funny)
Did you ever notice how you never see their dicks? I mean , they must be huge. And you never see them. Even though they're basically animals, and unclothed. That's why it's so unrealistic.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe if they wore a tie and hat like Yogi Bear you would have been distracted enough not to notice.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you ever think that maybe that's why they are the last of their species?
Scaled reptiles (order Squamata) normally keep their hemipenes internal, only extending them when erect. Maybe you aren't Godzilla's type, and maybe you should be glad you haven't seen a sexually aroused Godzilla. But it's a fair point for King Kong....
Re: Ever notice? (Score:2)
Well, if there is one thing that its still popular to discriminate against, it's penises.
So let's just say this very clearly:
If there is a dick out in the open ... in front of you ... and of children... Nothing will happen!
In many countries, being nude in public showers, saunas and evem pools or lakes or sunbathing is perfectly normal. And obvioulsy, nobody ever got harmed by it.
It is hateful prejudice, to just freaking imply that penis owner is sexually abusive or even interested in you at all. Yes, even a
Excuse the typos. (Score:2)
Goddammit, being back on mobile is *painful*.
What a piece of shit of a UI!
What is this crap? (Score:3)
Argentinosaurus is the largest whose size has been backed up by convincing evidence. This gigantic titanosaur (named after Argentina, where its remains were discovered in 1986) measured about 120 feet from head to tail and may have weighed nearly 100 tons.
Did the earth gain some substantial mass when I wasn't looking?
Re:What is this crap? (Score:4, Interesting)
Came here to make this same point. Basically this is just the same back of the envelope speculating that leads to classics like bumblebees not being able to fly, sturgeons and kangaroos mysteriously burning more calories moving around than they consume as food, and the big sauropods having to spend their entire lives living in swamps because their legs would never support their bodies on land. Basically it's people who know some math or physics, but don't know how to properly model the real world. Kangaroos, for example retain mechanical energy using their tendons like springs from one bounce to the next, so they only need a fraction of the energy each bounce requires to keep going. Most animals that move around on legs do that, and it's really, really obvious as well. Ditto for Sturgeon and other fish. You can't just calculate their cross section and how much resistance there is from the water and multiply times the distance travelled to figure out how much energy they need to move that far. They recover that energy from the wake of their own movement. Same sort of thing with bumblebees, the aerodynamics that were being used to try to figure out how they fly did not sufficiently describe reality.
As for the big sauropods being able to walk on land. That was just a bunch of ridiculous circular logic. It basically starts with the idea, like in this article, that African elephants, being the largest land mammal, are the largest land mammal because that's as big as land mammals can get without breaking their own leg bones walking around. Then fossils of animals that appear to have walked on land and make african elephants look like housecats vs humans by comparison turn up. So, naturally, it is concluded that they must have used buoyancy, like whales, to support their weight. Eventually, sense prevailed and it's now accepted that those big sauropods were, indeed, land animals and they supported their weight just fine. Ironically, one of the arguments against the water-based sauropod idea was the equally poorly thought out argument that they would not be able to immerse in water because their necks would be crushed under the water pressure and they would not be able to breathe. That is also a worthless argument because of how thick the necks of those sauropods were.
I remember the mathematical recreation column in Scientific American. There was a question in there once about toast always falling butter side down. It went with the assumption that toast falls butter side down because it is normally falling off the edge of a table and rotating on the way down. They did calculations on how universal the butter side down rule would be by considering how much of a complete rotation the toast could manage during the fall. So they considered things under different table heights and gravitational conditions. To do that, they approximated the maximum height that a bipedal animal could be, and they worked that out based on the maximum height an animal could be without killing itself when it fell over. What's worth noting about that is that they came up with a maximum height that was actually shorter than a Tyrannosaurus could reach and presented it unironically, completely ignoring that actual objective reality shows that the estimate was wrong.
Anyway, naturally, many people assume, naturally, that the largest dinosaurs then must be the largest land animals possible. It is always possible that's true, but no-one really seems to be putting forward a realistic model for why that would need to be. We have skyscrapers weighing literally millions of tons. They don't move, of course, so the argument can be made that no moving thing could bear that much weight without breaking apart. We do have planes with a takeoff weight of over 700 tons, however. All of that weight rests dynamically on the wing spars and air travel can frequently be turbulent. So we know that, in fact, there's no materials science reason preventing something that big that can walk around. Could it get bigger? Quite possible within our existing physics
Re: (Score:2)
ok, the real tragedy is that your post is 10x better than the article.
Please, use common units. (Score:2)
Since most of the world don’t use feet, the big question is: How much is that in footballfields?
Re: (Score:2)
Since most of the world don’t use feet, the big question is: How much is that in footballfields?
If you don't know how to convert, or even use Google, you're on the wrong site. https://www.google.com/search?q=393+ft+in+meters [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Football fields are 360 feet in length, so 393 ft / 360 ft = 1.092 football fields.
If you're actually referring to something un-American like a soccer pitch, well, no one here cares.
Re: Please, use common units. (Score:2)
You mean a football field.
Intermittend-Handegg fields are over there, sir:
Square Cube Law (Score:1)
Yeah yeah.
We've been aware of it for decades.
Give it a rest.
Not Realistic, Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever. Trying to apply too much logic to a dinosaur that can shoot radioactive beams out if its mouth is sort of crazy.
At least Godzilla vs. King Kong just went completely crazy with even bothering to follow any physical, biological, technological, or plot writing laws of any kind and just made the stupidest big monster movie they could. Come on, Godzilla's mouth ray being able to auger a huge tunnel all the way down to the center of the earth in mere minutes? It's best not to even bother try to logic that one out.
Re: (Score:2)
Each in his own in-universe cultural context is a *god*.
Nope (Score:2)
No it is not. The steppe mammoth was 11 tons. Paraceratherium, another mammal, was estimated up to 20 tons. Argentinosaurus may have weighted up to 100 tons.
Gravity was not what stopped Loxodonta africana from growing larger.
Oh I though it was... (Score:1)
Say what? (Score:2)
Jeez, get a life! (Score:2)
Nobody cares.
Seriously, you need i get out more often.
Oh, wait.
Nevermindy. Delay that order until post-Covid.
Really? (Score:2)
Really? I need to waste precious brain cell cycles contemplating this idiocy?