they're just huge kangaroos, really...
Posted on 03/21/2008 2:01:20 AM PDT by Swordmaker
they're just huge kangaroos, really...
Very useful tail, stores fat, acts as a rudder, nice to sit down on....
I am therefore 2.91 times taller than she is. Let's pretend I am 6 feet so we can avoid decimals. Now I am triple her height. Forgive me if I have misread your statements, but it appears that I would then be 27 times her body weight, or 486 pounds. This cannot be right, so I assume there is an error somewhere in here. Where have I made the error?
Are either of you idealized spheres?
Maybe? Did I get my math right if we were?
I obviously am not smart enough to do arithmetic. Ask the guy who posts pictures of seven foot teratorns. He seem to know a lot.
He’s making quite a name for himself on science forums. First new thing since Ted Holden.
It worked for sparrows, didn't it? It works for humans, doesn't it?
Why not try it for critters whose length is largely determined by necks and tails?
Large critters vs. gravity ping...
A sane person, noting that assumptions about proportions and scaling lead to questionable answers, first thinks about adjusting assumptions.
But you, who are clever enough to equate the proportions of your seven foot fossil with that of a teratorn, are a world class expert on assumptions.
Your problem begins with your inability to see that it makes more sense to overturn physics rather than to question assumptions about scaling.
Bow down to the priests of the Electric Universe, heathen.
Yes, but does any of your so-called science explain Zombie-ism? I thought not.
I’ve done the scaling math on a dozen raptor birds and found predicted weights typically off by thirty percent.
The wing loading of the largest teratorn, even using SM’s weight, is half the maximum allowable for flight, assuming our current gravity, atmospheric density and oxygen content. We know that oxygen content was higher at the time of the dinosaurs, making energy conversion more efficient.
The heaviest bird observed to achieve flight was a young albatross weighting 35 pounds. There are flying birds unable to take off from a standstill, or without headwinds.
But it makes far more sense to assume the laws of physics have changed rather than to work out the details of pre-history on the assumption that physics is constant.
Zombie-eaten brains explain belief in the Electric Universe.
Why do you hate zombies?
I don’t hate them. They help us see the truth. Now bow before our Electric Overlords.
Regardless of the properly done math, they fudged their answers with no good reason to suspect that the Square Cube Law was in any way wrong. Nor do they have any evidence that the assumptions about body density is somehow different for larger sauropods than for smaller ones. They merely adjust downward until they were more comfortable with the answers... and that is NOT good science. That is sweeping the data under the rug and ignoring something that doesn't fit their preconceived notions.
You, on the other hand, choose to attack my sanity. JS, even their doctored results are far beyond the theoretical maximum for animals to walk on land... far beyond. What do you think would be an acceptable weight for a 120 foot dinosaur? And what would it be made of? Helium?
I’ve made no attacks on you, SM. I may engage in some banter with JS, but my questions to you were real. Did I screw the math up? I tried to use a very simple example.
An infant and an adult are not proportional.
Can you be more specific than that please? I am now actually thinking that I would need to weigh 18 piounds []cubed[/i]. Is this correct, if we were perfectly proportional?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.