View Single Post
  #23  
Old 03-12-2017, 03:09 PM
Green Bean Green Bean is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NJ, Exit #137
Posts: 11,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by astro View Post
Plus meat yield to a non-native English scientist may not include the muktuk which many (it is an acquired taste by all accounts) would consider inedible wastage vs the flesh. If we're just talking lean whale "meat" as something westerners would eat the yield numbers are much smaller.
I was figuring it as all edible parts being eaten, including organ meats, so muktuk woyld definitely be included.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdelweissPirate View Post
Actually, it goes the other way: bone mass does not increase linearly with body mass, but rather with mass raised to the power of 1.09. So if a blue whale is 100 times the size of a smaller whale, we'd expect its ones to be 151 times as big as the smaller whale's. This suggests a smaller proportion of edible material from the larger whale.

Galileo was one of the first to notice this nonlinearity. Here's an account of Galileo's take on things and how that correlates to the observable world:

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/cla...LEOSCALING.pdf
Hm, interesting.

I realize too that I was envisioning a blue whale as being of a greater relative girth than it actually is, probably as a result of cartoon depictions!