Re: Lucy's weight

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: cc3265@CNSVAX.ALBANY.EDU: "Re: need up-to-date book€€€€€"
• Previous message: cc3265@CNSVAX.ALBANY.EDU: "Re: Thoughts on "Origins of human thought""
• Maybe in reply to: Alex Duncan: "Lucy's weight"

In article <45clop$iat@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> Alex Duncan <aduncan@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
>In article <45b6t8$go2@news.cc.ucf.edu> Thomas Clarke,
>clarke@acme.ist.ucf.edu writes:

>>Do we know that Lucy weighed less than 100 pounds. ...
>> <from stresses we could> ... infer body weight.

>Lucy's mass has been calculated numerous times, by numerous workers,
>using a number of different methods similar to what you describe. Her
>mass consistently is estimated at 28 - 30 kg (no more than 66 lbs).

Thanks.
Then since Lucy was half my height, if she were in linear^3 proportion
to me, she should have weighed 1/8 as much, or perhaps 25-30 pounds.
Since my wife tells me that I am getting too plump, I guess that
means that Lucy was even plumper?

(None of the standard weight tables go down to 3 foot height :-)

A plump Lucy? I kind of like the idea; she was doing well.

Tom Clarke

• Next message: cc3265@CNSVAX.ALBANY.EDU: "Re: need up-to-date book€€€€€"
• Previous message: cc3265@CNSVAX.ALBANY.EDU: "Re: Thoughts on "Origins of human thought""
• Maybe in reply to: Alex Duncan: "Lucy's weight"