|
@badreality
Depends on how functional you want the hypothetical person to be. In theory, you could take the compressive load capacity of, say, the leg bones, which with the proportionate increase to ~30 ft in height from the average 5-6 ft, would be able to take the stress of the new weight. That doesn't, however, take into consideration joints and cartilage and what not, which would lower that threshold considerably. I don't know right off the values on those to plug into the formula, to find what that would be, though. Then you've got other considerations like blood pumping vs gravity, and the force the heart has to pump with, etc.
http://www.naturalheightgrowth.com/2012/09/20/what-is-the-tallest-theoretical-height-of-the-human-species/ <--- Just found this; this guy apparently actually worked some of it out and postulates a max theoretical height of 15-20 feet.
I see what you're saying with the dominance factor. I more just meant that as another example, but looking back, I kind of worded it ambiguously. :3 For me it really depends on my mood; one day I'll be totally into gentle stuff, and hop to the opposite end of the spectrum the next. Either way, I'm kind of right there with you. To me, the neat part of macrophilia is the concept of appreciating a lover on an entirely new scale.
|
