The Impossible Dinosaurs - Megafauna and Attenuated Gravity

Kronia.com ^ | Ted Holden

[jeddavis]

Not enough to produce the minimal three or four to one difference in gravity you’d have to have for the largest sauropod dinosaurs. Most likely in my view is that gravity itself is some sort of an electrostatic effect and not a basic force in nature. It is the weakest of all the normal forces in nature.

[gondramB]

>>Not enough to produce the minimal three or four to one difference in gravity you’d have to have for the largest sauropod dinosaurs. Most likely in my view is that gravity itself is some sort of an electrostatic effect and not a basic force in nature. It is the weakest of all the normal forces in nature.<<

I’m an Occum’s razor kind of guy - I find it simpler that a three to one error in calculating the gravity has been made.

That’s much simpler than than the gravity of the earth changing by three to one.

[bert]

Brillianr.....I’ll accept that hypothesis. 2 rpd

[valkyry1]

bookmark for later

[valkyry1]

The immense size of these pre-historic creatures indicate that something/s were greatly different about their environments, and attenuated gravity would be just one of those conditions that would be difficult if not to impossible to detect after so much time has passed.

[Swordmaker]

The problem is not with the physics. It is insanely stupid to assert, based on reconstructions projected from a few fossils, that physics and astronomy is all wrong about the physical history of the earth.

It is equally stupid to ignore the evidence that something does not compute when we look at the masses of the super-large dinosauria and the known capabilities of muscles and their chemical limitations.

While that largest dinosaur is based on a few bones (specifically an 8 foot tall tail vertebra and a 14-15 ft fossilized femur - both now lost due to fragility) and could possibly be a mis-interpretation of species and extrapolated size, there are many near complete fossils of other dinosaurs that are far larger than anything that could walk on Earth today.

Even when the original apatosaurus was unearthed and had the wrong head mounted on the skeleton and called "Brontosaurus" it was calculated that the 75 foot long complete skeleton was from an animal that weighed at least 33 tons... 66,000 lbs., a figure twice as large as the theoretical maximum of ~30,000 lbs that a chemical driven muscle engine could lift in 1G. Early paleontologists decided the only way such a large animal could survive was by wallowing in shallow marshes... so the water could support the weight.

Early Brontosaurus depiction

However, none of the fossils were found in strata that was consistent with such marshy conditions and instead seemed to be normal coniferous forest. In addition, the feet of the Apatosaurus/Brontosaurus were not adapted to muddy marsh bottoms.

Later fossil finds of the similar species were up to 110 feet long... and up to 200% heavier. The Apatosaurus/Brontosaurus are not alone:

• Apatosaurus - 23 m, 75 ft., est. 30 - 35 tons, 60-70,000 lbs.
• Brachiosaurus - 25 m, 82 ft., est. 35 - 45 tons, 70-90,000 Lbs.
• Diplodocus - 27 m, 92 ft., est. 45-55 tons, 90-110,000 lbs.
• Argyrosaurus * - 30 m, 98 ft., est. 45 -55 tons, 90-110,000 lbs.
• Sauroposeidon * - 30 m, 98 ft., est. 55 - 65 tons, 110-130,000 lbs.
• Paralititan - 32 m, * 105 ft., est. 72 - 88 tons, 144-176,000 lbs.
• Argentinasaurus * - 35 m, 114 ft., est. 90 - 100 tons, 180-200,000 lbs.
• Seismosaurus ** - 36 m, 120 ft., 80 - 100 tons, 160-200,000 lbs.
• Bruhathkayosaurus ** - 40 m, 130 ft., est. 190 - 240 tons, 380-480,000 lbs.
• Amphicoelias fragillimus ** - 58 m, 190 ft., est. 140 - 185 tons, 280-370,000 lbs.

* Accepted sizes based on comparisons of similar bone structures from incomplete skeletal remains to complete (related species) Diplodocus fossils.
** Controversial size estimates due to incomplete or fragmentary remains or possible mis-location of vertebrae.

Several of these megafauna are represented by almost totally complete fossil skeletons...

London's 82 foot Complete Diplodocus fossil
Estimated 70,000 to 90,000 pounds.

... and the estimated weights of those complete specimens are the modern calculations accepted by most paleontologists. Even the smallest is estimated to have weighed in at twice the theoretical maximum animal weight under a 1G gravity field... and the largest could be as much as 16 times that figure!

We also have many fossils of two to four foot dragonflies that are proportionately identical to modern 2 to 6 inch dragonflies yet would weigh more than 64 times as much but don't have the muscle attachments to their wings to lift that much mass against 1 gravity.

Meganeura (wing-span 70 cm - 27 inches) -
A huge archaic dragonfly-like insect
belonging to a group called Protodonata

We have the almost complete skeletons of Argentine Teratorns that, while essentially identical in structure to modern Eagles and Condors, are three times their size... and 27 times their mass... with wings and wing musceles that are no larger proportionately to their size than those of their smaller, modern cousins.

7 foot tall Teratorn skeleton found in Argentina,
Its flight feathers would have been 5 feet long.



The Argentavis magnificens's humerous
bone above a 15cm (~6") ruler.



California Teratornis Meriami, found
in the La Brea Tarpit. It's 1/3rd larger
than the largest California Condor.
1.33³=2.35 X 23 lbs Condor weight =
Merriam's Teratorn weight of ~54 Lbs.

Calculations have been done on the power the Argentavis magnificens had available to it under modern conditions (the only one's the team of scientists who did the calculations even considered) to maintain level flight under 1G. They found that the Teratorn would require 600 Watts of continuous aerobic power to maintain level flight... but the theoretical maximum power the bird could generate with its muscles (using extremely conservative estimates for its mass, and extremely liberal estimates for its wing area and flight muscle mass) was only 170 Watts. Oops. It couldn't sustain level flight under 1G conditions.

In addition, it was calculated that their ideal Argentavis magnificens' stall speed for landing was 39 Mph... far too fast for a safe landing... and its take off speed with no headwind required the bird, whom ornithologists say was not well designed for running, to run at 39 Mph... for ~100 feet down a 10º slope to gain air speed and lift and then hope it finds an 300 foot diameter continuous updraft of at least 3 feet per second to use to climb before it crashes back to the ground. Of course if our hypothetical bird were lucky, and if found an obliging headwind, he could run a bit slower or for a lesser distance. An alternative method to get into the air required the bird to climb up a >65 foot tree or cliff and jump off into a 5 mphhead wind and hope to level off before hitting the ground... and THEN, again, find an large updraft.

All the while avoiding hungry, ground based predators.

Strangely, while some Argentavis magnificens skeletons have been found in the Andes, the majority have been found on the Pampas... flat, level, treeless plains. Again, oops... how does it get airborne? Sounds to me like an awful lot of luck and ideal conditions was needed to get this over sized, over weight bird into the air.

Other scientists were able to get the Merriam's Teratorn, a much smaller bird, into simulated flight... but to do it they assumed that the bird, 1/3rd larger then the California Condor, also weighed only 1/3rd more than the Condor! That is totally ignoring the Square Cube Law... which they are apparently familiar with because they DID multiply the wing area of the Teratorn by the square of the size multiplier... but didn't multiply the mass by the CUBE of the size multiplier... Why? Did they think that the Teratorn's muscles and bones were 2.35 times lighter than a Condor's? That's what it would take to keep the mass only 1/3rd more. In other words: they cheated.

Are you also going to deny the extremely well understood science of aeronautics that says that under modern conditions this bird cannot fly? Or can we admit that something had to be fundamentally different about their environment that would allow them to defy gravity?

[ThePythonicCow]

Nice post - thanks.

[js1138]

A California condor (290 cm) is 25 times larger than a chestnut sparrow (11.4 cm). If we scale up a Chestnut Sparrow (13.4 g) to the size of a California Condor using the formula in your illustration, the sparrow would weigh more than 200 kg.

290cm/11.4cm = 25 (rounded)
25^3 = 15625
15625 x 13.4g = 209375g
209375g/1000 = 209.375 kg

[Fred Nerks]

Or can we admit that something had to be fundamentally different about their environment that would allow them to defy gravity?

Somewhere in Ovid's Metamorphesis, there's reference to 'the earth sank beneath her wonted place' (paraphrased) and Maya legends tell of a time when the Sun receeded, IIRC the distance was described as 'three hand's breadth' -

Leads me to wonder, why would we assume the earth has always occupied the same orbital distance from the Sun? I recently read an article in which astronomers postulated the solar system is 'foreign' to our galaxy...so now I ask myself, in the light of electromagnetism, how might the earth's gravitational field be affected by being 'thrown out of the ring' - if distance from the sun is either decreased or increased?

Btw...enjoyed your post and follow-up immensly, thanks.

[Swordmaker]

A California condor (290 cm) is 25 times larger than a chestnut sparrow (11.4 cm). If we scale up a Chestnut Sparrow (13.4 g) to the size of a California Condor using the formula in your illustration, the sparrow would weigh more than 200 kg.

Interesting argument... but wrong.

The failing in your comparison is that the body structure of your Chestnut sparrow is not the same as a California Condor. You're basing your 25 times scaling on Wing span... not body length and breadth, where the bulk of a bird's mass is concentrated.

As I have indicated by frequent statement, the proportions need to be close to identical in the comparisons.

Your Chestnut Sparrow has a wingspan about equal to its body length including tail feathers... that's a 1 to 1 ratio or around a 4.5" wingspan.

The California Condor - like the Teratorn - has a wingspan that is ~3.5 times its body length including tail. The Teratorns and the Condors share similar structure with wing span to body length ratio of about 3.5 to 1.

The short, stubby, flapping wings of the Chestnut sparrow are not in the same proportion to its body length and breadth as the long gliding wings of the Condor and Teratorns to their body length and breadth.

Chestnut Sparrow
Cute little fellow, isn't he?

California Condor
Ugly fellow, isn't he?


Raptor proportions
California Condor is at the top.

The teratorn body is simply a proportionately scaled up version of an eagle or condor... but your Chestnut Sparrow scaled up to equal the wing span of the California Condor, and all other body parts scaled by the same multiplier, would have a body 9.375 feet long and would not be able to fly either... because he WOULD have the weight you calculated.

Let's do it properly and calculate the body mass of your scaled up sparrow using only the body length, which as mentioned above is where the vast majority of the weight of a bird is concentrated.

The body length of an average California Condor including tail feathers is ~45"... so, ~45" divided by ~4.5" (body length of your C. Sparrow) gives us a multiplier of ~10 times... the calculated weight of the ~10 times larger C. Sparrow would be ~10³ = ~1,000 x ~13.4g = ~13,400g = ~13.4Kg = ~29.5 Lbs.

Whow... what do you know... while a little heavy for an average Condor (which is probably because the C. Sparrow is considered a "chunky" bird for its size), it's right in the range of California Condor weights reported by the National Geographic's California Condor web page.

[valkyry1]

I caught that right away also. His using of a sparrow as a model compared to the Condor and the Teratorn was so absurd that most likely he is totally ignorant in these areas of knowledge. Or maybe much less likely he had some coaching and used that example in an attempt to mix things up.

[js1138]

As long as we are discussing which dimensions are to be used in your formula, you might want to explain how much tail feathers contribute to body mass, and why you included their length, while rejecting wingspan. Just curious. The only objects that scale correctly with your formula are spheres and polyhedrons that can be mathematically approximated by spheres.

I showed you and extreme example of how simple measurements don’t scale up. Now it is your turn to show the exact measurements used to calculate the body mass of dinosaurs. let’s see the actual calculations.

As to whether teratorns could fly, your calculations of energy requirements are rubbish. Gliding birds may require a significant amount of headwind in order to take off, but once aloft, they seldom flap. Some are not able to take off at all without a headwind.

This leaves unanswered the question of how much time the largest teratorns may have spent flying, and whether flying was a significant component of their hunting.

All these speculations are interesting,, but they hardly add up to evidence to overthrow two centuries of physics.

[Swordmaker]

As long as we are discussing which dimensions are to be used in your formula, you might want to explain how much tail feathers contribute to body mass, and why you included their length, while rejecting wingspan. Just curious. The only objects that scale correctly with your formula are spheres and polyhedrons that can be mathematically approximated by spheres.

Simple. I could not find anything that gave the measurements of the Chestnut Sparrow's or for Condor's actual body size minus the tail feathers... but the tail feathers of Eagles and Condors appear to be approximately the same proportion of body length as the Chestnut Sparrow from all of the pictures I found of all three. And I did look, seeking the information of the actual featherless body dimensions.

However, if the tails feathers extended the body length by the same proportion on both Condors and C. Sparrows, then I could go ahead and use the overall length for the calculations. I found that the tail feathers of both the C.S. and the Condors were approximately 1/4 to 1/3 of the body length and appeared to be proportionately about the same on both species. Any observational difference errors may account for the slight over-weight of the calculations of the scaled up C. Sparrow although several descriptions for the C. Sparrow mentioned it being a "chunky" bird for its size, so either could be the case.

If, however, the tail feathers were like those of a parakeet (tail feathers equal body length) or Peacocks (tail feathers can be two to three times body length) then obviously I could not have used that figure for the Square Cube Law calculations. The body length is certainly better than using Wing Span.

As to whether teratorns could fly, your calculations of energy requirements are rubbish. Gliding birds may require a significant amount of headwind in order to take off, but once aloft, they seldom flap. Some are not able to take off at all without a headwind.

No, they are not... nor are they MY calculations. They come from a peer-reviewed article by an aeronautical engineer. I have seen California Condors take off from a standing position... and even Gooney Birds can do so... but prefer not to. The calculations show that even the smallest of Teratorns could not have done so.

This leaves unanswered the question of how much time the largest teratorns may have spent flying, and whether flying was a significant component of their hunting.

Of course the lifestyle of extinct animals is only theoretical... but certain things can be learned from their body adaptations... and it is likely that teratorns hunted like Eagles rather than as carrion eaters like Condors. Their body styles are closer to Eagles with talons designed not for walking (or running...) but rather for an attack from the air.

[js1138]

No, they are not... nor are they MY calculations. They come from a peer-reviewed article by an aeronautical engineer.

Then they are available and you can show us the numbers.

I gave my example -- admittedly a worst case -- because your articles don't mention anything except length.

You have to understand that science has a feature called consilience. Everything has to be consistent with everything else.

The idea that the earth once rotated every two or three hours is not consistent with known physics.

The question of whether a particular bird may or may not have been able to take off by flapping its wings is a rather minor issue. It's a mystery, but the solution is unlikely to alter our view of cosmology. The large dinosaurs are even less of an issue. It makes no sense to try to invalidate physics based of a projected size and mass of a creature known only by a drawing of one bone that has been lost for over a century.

Your projected weights based on the square cube law are troublesome enough when applied to creatures we can touch and measure and observe. they border on nonsense when they are based on a few bits and pieces that have been mineralized.

If you dispute this, let's see the actual numbers and actual calculations.

[Swordmaker]

Then they are available and you can show us the numbers.

I've shown you the numbers... they were what I put in my reply.

They were extracted from:

---

Procedings of the National Academy of Science, U S A. 2007 July 24;
Volume: 104(30), Pages: 12398-12403.
Published online 2007 July 3. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702040104.
PMCID: PMC1906724
Copyright © 2007 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA

The aerodynamics of Argentavis, the world's largest flying bird from the Miocene of Argentina
Sankar Chatterjee, Department of Geosciences, Museum of Texas Tech University, Box 43191, Lubbock, TX 79409-3191;
R. Jack Templin, retired aeronautical engineer, formerly with the Canadian National Research Council in Ottawa, 2212 Aster Street, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1H 6R6;
and Kenneth E. Campbell, Jr., Department of Ornithology, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 900 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90007

Edited by Steven Vogel, Duke University, Durham, NC, and accepted by the Editorial Board June 6, 2007
Author contributions: S.C. designed research; S.C. performed research; R.J.T. contributed new analytic tools; K.E.C. studied the fossil; S.C. and R.J.T. analyzed data; and S.C., R.J.T., and K.E.C. wrote the paper.

Received March 5, 2007.

---

ABSTRACT
We calculate the flight performance of the gigantic volant bird Argentavis magnificens from the upper Miocene (~6 million years ago) of Argentina using a computer simulation model. Argentavis was probably too large (mass ~70 kg) to be capable of continuous flapping flight or standing takeoff under its own muscle power. Like extant condors and vultures, Argentavis would have extracted energy from the atmosphere for flight, relying on thermals present on the Argentinean pampas to provide power for soaring, and it probably used slope soaring over the windward slopes of the Andes. It was an excellent glider, with a gliding angle close to 3º and a cruising speed of 67 kph. Argentavis could take off by running downhill, or by launching from a perch to pick up flight speed. Other means of takeoff remain problematic.

---

You can read the paper here: The aerodynamics of Argentavis, the world's largest flying bird from the Miocene of Argentina

It makes no sense to try to invalidate physics based of a projected size and mass of a creature known only by a drawing of one bone that has been lost for over a century.

First of all, I am not trying to "invalidate physics" ... if anything, I am using physics to try and find an answer to an observed impossibility, a fact or set of facts that don't seem to fit our understanding of what is possible ... and I have NOT used only one example. I have provided many examples... and there are a lot more.

I have already provided information on Dinosaurs where we have much more than "one bone...lost for over a century". It is you who is not bringing anything except ignorant denial of anything that doesn't seem to meet your world view. You are cherry picking your data to try and negate it.

In fact, the official estimated weights of those megafauna are underestimated because even the paleontologists were having trouble accepting what they were finding based on the calculations... so they "lightened" them up... they fudged the math. For example, had they used the straight forward result from the Square Cube Law calculation, one animal that was listed with an estimated weight over 300,000 lbs., would have been listed at a minimum 490,000 lbs. Also, a couple of the estimates were probably properly "adjusted" for the fact that the tails were longer and more "whip-like" than the comparable Diplodocus skeleton.

Finally, the weight ranges given in the references that I quoted are not just simple Square Cube Law calculations based solely on the length of the animal... they are more complex calculations, adjusting for length, depth, and width of major portions of the beast, as well as adjustments for differences that may exist in void spaces (i.e. increasing lung capacity required for larger animals) in the bodies. These are not numbers that are just tossed out there without considerable research and thought behind them, as you seem to imply.

As for those lost bones (there were actually two, a tail vertebra and 14-15 foot long Femur), they were collected by a well respected paleontologist, Edward Drinker Cope, who found and catalogued many other specimens that are still extant... and none of his descriptions of them were fabricated or exaggerated. His work is reliable on the fossils that still exist in his catalogues so why should we doubt the existence or truthfulness of his description of the few that have been lost or destroyed?

The idea that the earth once rotated every two or three hours is not consistent with known physics.

And again you are wrong. The idea that the Earth once rotated every two or three hours is not really disputed... and it is indeed consistent with known physics. Any dispute is about WHEN it may have done that.

However, while it may be a viable hypothesis to explain the existence of megafauna, I do not subscribe to that hypothesis. That was a hypothesis put forward by ThePythonicCow, I think.

I gave my example -- admittedly a worst case -- because your articles don't mention anything except length.

Your example was not a good "worst case" example because you really don't know how to do it. Had you followed the logic of the Square Cube Law, you would have completed your example and found that your scaled up Chestnut Sparrow would have a body almost 10 feet long... instead of the 3-4 foot body of a California Condor you were comparing it to... and seen the total absurdity of your example. Or, had you superimposed an outline of your sparrow on the outline of a California Condor, you would see that they are not at all similar in build. On the other hand, if you superimposed a California Condor outline on the Argentavis magnificens outline, extrapolated from its skeleton, you will find that ALL of its proportions are essentially identical. On one it is reasonable to use a straight forward Square Cube calculation... on the other, it is not. Guess which is reasonable... hint, it isn't yours.

Actually, they and I have spoken of other things "except length"... they and I referred to the other specimens as being "proportionate" to the comparable animals where we knew the complete size. Length is used because they ARE proportional in their other measurements, which makes length a good determiner of the multiplier, just as my explanation of why your "admittedly a worst case" scenario, which, I might add, you did not divulge until I showed you the errors, was based on the requirement for proportional scaling.

Your projected weights based on the square cube law are troublesome enough when applied to creatures we can touch and measure and observe. they border on nonsense when they are based on a few bits and pieces that have been mineralized.

First if all there IS no "troublesome" issue with the Square Cube Law when applied to creatures we can touch, measure, and observe... it works every time (that's why they call it a "law") when it is applied properly... something you did not do. Secondly, js1138, the projected weights are NOT MY PROJECTIONS but rather are the accepted weight ranges from the science of Paleontology. These were not just calculated by me or the author of this article; they can be found in many authoritative mainstream sources. It is YOU who refuse to look at the facts... it is you, an admitted amateur, who apparently would prefer to ignore them and call them "nonsense" when leading scientists in the field such as Dr. Robert Bakker accepts them as valid. I provided you a chart of the known brachiosaurs that showed the known sizes of some species (which were already far beyond the limits of modern animal weight and strength), such as the Diplodocus, and those of some incomplete skeletons in which the animals size is extrapolated from comparisons of the found parts to similar parts in a known related species. I also provided information on animals such as the Teratorns where we DO have complete skeletons (for some Teratorn species we have hundreds of skeletons).

they border on nonsense when they are based on a few bits and pieces that have been mineralized. If you dispute this, let's see the actual numbers and actual calculations.

I do indeed dispute your allegation that established science is nonsense. I am not going to cut and paste pages and pages of numbers and calculations that you can find for yourself... since you are the one disputing well established and accepted science. If you want to review the actual numbers and the calculations involved as well as the theory and practice that they support, you can start with this book:

"Dinosaur Systematics: Approaches and Perspectives", by By Kenneth Carpenter and Philip J. Currie, Published 1992, Cambridge University Press, 334 pages, ISBN 0521438101

You can read some of this book on line. It has been quite a few years since I read this book... but it has the information and calculations you want to check.

You have to understand that science has a feature called consilience. Everything has to be consistent with everything else.

You see, JS, I do understand that... and here we have a set of facts that are NOT consistent with what we think is correct.

Your arguments are based in uniformitarianism... the assumption that the natural processes operating in the past are the same as those that can be observed operating in the present.. a theory that is increasingly being challenged by facts that don't fit. When the facts don't fit, you don't ignore the facts to continue embracing a failed theory... you discard it and start looking for a theory that incorporates those inconvenient facts as well. Other theories have been proposed to better fit the facts as we find them. Primary among these is catastrophism, where sudden changes in the conditions of the Earth may result in major changes in the flora and fauna of the Earth. One example of this theory is the mounting evidence that the impact of an extraterrestrial object caused a catastrophe that destroyed the dinosaurs... and indeed, that such condition changes are probably responsible for many if not most evolutionary changes to life forms on earth. Punctuated Evolution may be a result of catastrophism changing the conditions under which life must exist and causing adaptations for mere survival.

When the facts don't fit the theory, ANY alternate explanation that fits the facts is fodder for investigation until it is falsified. However, sweeping the facts under the rug is not appropriate science.. in fact it is not science at all... that's dogma.

[aruanan]

Excellent points that underscore the fact that it’s far easier to take potshots at something than to understand it and grapple with what is revealed to be inexplicable given a current understanding. I wonder if the much higher oxygen content of the air could support cellular function while reducing other requirements having to do with structure and function. Maybe the velociraptor wasn’t really that fast and everything was sort of a molassass world.

[valkyry1]

Great post and thanks for staying focused on the article and topic.

[ThePythonicCow]

However, while it may be a viable hypothesis to explain the existence of megafauna, I do not subscribe to that hypothesis. That was a hypothesis put forward by ThePythonicCow, I think.

Yes, it was I who put forward the hypothesis that fast Earth rotation allowed these massive dinosaurs to walk and fly.

The idea is not mine orginally. Sometime a year or three ago I read an article that presented the case for this, but I can't find the article now, and can't present a good case either way. So at this point, it's just an hypothesis, that a few (such as myself) may find intriguing, but that others (likely most others) will dismiss or ignore, for one reason or another.

[Swordmaker]

The only objects that scale correctly with your formula are spheres and polyhedrons that can be mathematically approximated by spheres.

Where did you pick up that BS, JS?

I let this go earlier because I was replying on my iPhone... but I have to challenge your totally unscientific absurd assertion.

The Square Cube law is not only for spheres or polyhedrons. It is valid for any 3 dimensional object regardless of how complex it may be.

Let's try it on a cube... a 1 inch by 1 inch by 1 inch cube... double the size...multiply by 2 in every dimension. It's now 2 inches x 2 inches x 2 inches.

The surface area of the 1 inch cube was 6 square inches - six sides, each 1 square inch... The square cube law says that the area should be multiplied by the multiplier squared... 2². So let's do it. 2² = 4, multiply 6 square inches by 4 = 24 square inches. yup, that works.

How about the volume? The Square Cube law says to multiply it by the cube of the multiplier... 2³. 2³=8, 8 x 1³ inches = 8 cubic inches. Yep works there.

This is a mathematical law... it works for everything, js1138.. it's fundamental.

I'm beginning to see why you are failing to grasp the problem.

[valkyry1]

As a hypothesis, I found it interesting. Obviously something was going on in their environment because a reptilian physiology would not support such an immense animal today.

Even the water based Salt Water Croc tops out around 22 feet in length, and he is horizontal in form/shape.