/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6744150
>How can we shrink people?

genetic engineering, make smaller babies.

>>6744150
There is a biological lower limit to size

>>6744154
>biological lower limit to size

what is genetic engineering

If it is, it'll make the pornography industry super interesting in the future.

if your going to make a giant woman please dont make it a white trash tatooed skank like this

>>6744160

>>>/pol/

>>6744150
tfw no qt4.0 giantess girlfriend
you will never fall asleep inside her spacious yet oh-so cozy vagina ;_;

life is too painful

>>6744186

never say never, anything is possible

>>6744160
If we used the same materials as natural humans, I'm pretty sure she'd collapse under her own weight anyways, wouldn't she?

>>6744326
>I'm pretty sure she'd collapse under her own weight anyways, wouldn't she?

no why? that only applies to weird insects and ants

>>6744326
If she was fifty feet tall, yes. Absolutely.

>>6744449
It's not just for insects with outward limbs; the square-cube law would imply a redesign of the 50-foot-woman to not really be a woman anymore.
The bones wouldn't cut it.

>>6744156
Genetic engineering can't do shit about the size of molecules.

>>6744204
If anything is possible, then is it possible for something to be impossible?

>>6744499
Obviously. You would just never be able to tell (or able to tell that (or this (etc.)))

>>6744150
60+ cm: possible with breeding, though heads will be weirdly large.
30-60 cm: requires making the human brain a lot more compact. Not sure if possible with any currently existing biological architecture.
<30cm: a whole host of problems. Heat dissipation, sight, hearing, the brain still, proportionally soft, thin, and tiny limbs, too small heart and lungs, etc.

If you want small humans, you're better off uploading them and putting them in tiny humanoid robots.

>>6744158
this.

>>6744472
>The bones wouldn't cut it.

prove it, citation needed

Now bugs like Spiders are 10 times more scary.

No thanks.

>>6744509
But if it's possible for something to be impossible, then not everything is possible. How it can it be possible if it's contradictory?

>>6744150

There'd have to be a lower limit to the size of a biological system whilst still conserving the same complexity.

Basically you can't change the laws of physics, you can't change the size of atoms and molecules either.

>>6744554

Well we could reach the lower limit or close to it, same idea.


Shrink people.

>>6744513

considering fat peoples knees buckle under their 200kg frames, i somehow doubt scaling the knees up would allow them to support a 6,000 kg frame. its still ligaments and tendons and bones which are structurally the same, just larger. the amount of blood pressure required to pump blood up the 15ft from her heart to her head would cause her head to explode if she bent over, unless she had some weird giraffe-like valve that cut the pressure. at any rate she couldnt be anatomically human.

>>6744472

again, not just bones, but i think people forget the fact that humans require oxygenated blood circulating through the whole body. the pressure required for the arteries to being blood to the head would cause it to explode if she bent over. not to mention if she still has human skin, it would be destroyed underfoot by the sheer weight of the woman

>>6744664

so shrink people instead of making them giants

>>6744150

hook up with midgets

>>6744551
It's a dependent state based on quantum interactivity

>>6744679
It doesn't work that way either
Midgets have all sorts of health problems

>>6744522
we'll shrink those cunts too

>>6744497
>dogs evolved from domesticated wolf
>my sides when Chihuahua have as much molecules as Doberman

>>6744718
that's because they are compared to normal-sized humans. Lifespan of rodents is short for a reason.

>>6744694
If you start with assumption and end with contradiction, assumption was wrong. If it's impossible to find something impossible in universe where everything is possible, that's a contradiction, ergo it's impossible for everything to be possible.

>got owned by pic related

>>6744721
I don't think 'molecules' means what you think it means

>>6744781
atoms glued together with strong nuclear force?

>>6744841
Strong holds the nucleus together, electromagnetic hold molecules together.

>>6744844
in atom there are as much electrons as protons, so it's charge in neutral. On the smaller scale, electromagnetic force repel atoms, because repealing force ee/l and pp/(l+2*r) is weaker than attracting force 2*ep/(l+r)

>>6744150
Make it happen already! Jesus Christ stop wasting my time.

nature doesn't oblige to the mentally disturbed fantasies of scientifically illiterate manchildren