Multiplying the length of the femur by 2. 6 and adding 65 to it should be roughly the person's body height in centimeters. However, the sex and race of the person can affect this relationship between the femur and body height.
Neither, they are both dependant on genetic and environmental factors. The supposed relation is a correlation, not a cause.
== == It depends actually. If you were given a value that is a height and want to find the forearm length from that then the forearm length would go on the Y axis (because it is dependant on the height) and the height on the X-axis. If you are given a value that is the forearm length and you want to know the height then you will put height on the Y-axis and the forearm length on the X-axis.
From what I have read on a similar topic (foot length vs. theoretical shoe size to real-world shoe size), there is a loose correlation between height and shoe size. There is however a stronger correlation between foot length and forearm length - and really limb length in general. Simply said, a taller person will likely have longer limbs - arms and legs are simply part of being taller/shorter. However when you take into account different body proportions, such as a person having relatively long legs vs. a relatively tall torso (height to sholders while setting down) for their height. Well foot length is another proportion variable. So while a 6' tall (or taller) male will most likely wear a larger shoe size than a 5'6" tall male (or shorter) - two random 6' tall males will likely wear shoes of at least slightly different size. To add more complication to any correlation, foot length vs. shoe size are not "cast in stone" at all. Sorry if this is a bit long of an answer to say "no", but "no" is not really the answer - just closer to "yes".
63 times length of ulna. jk
A 36cm humerus in a man indicates a height of about 5' 11.7" *A 36cm humerus in a woman indicates a height of about 5' 9.1" *** (2.89 x bone length) +78.10 = height in cm** (3.08 x bone length) + 64.67 = height in cm
There is a reasonably strong positive correlation.
there is a correlation in the ratio between the arm length and the leg length. the ratio is 1.556 inches.
Multiplying the length of the femur by 2. 6 and adding 65 to it should be roughly the person's body height in centimeters. However, the sex and race of the person can affect this relationship between the femur and body height.
No, there is no direct correlation between shoe size and height. Height is mainly determined by genetics, nutrition, and overall health, while shoe size is determined by the length and width of your feet.
The length of one arm is about 40% of your height
Its area is equal to its length, multiplied by its height
A yard is a measurement of length, width, height, and distance. A pound is a measurement of mass, or the amount of matter in an object. There is no direct correlation between the two, and hence no conversion is possible.
Neither, they are both dependant on genetic and environmental factors. The supposed relation is a correlation, not a cause.
There is no answer to this question. Centimeters are a measure of length. Liters are a measure of volume. There is no correlation between the two.
There is no correlation between meters (measure of length) and decigram (measure of weight).
The geometric relationship between the views would be that they have the same exact dimensions (length, width, height) as the "adjacent" view below it or next to it.
Length by height.Addition:About artworks it is always height by length.