|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 27, 2013 4:43:41 GMT 5
Losing a debate ? I'm continuously quoting the actual world references in sauropods science, quotes which contradict, or at least, heavily relativises what you are trying to inflict to the people since a while.
As for the F-word, it has been abusively used many times, but not this time. This thread has for purpose by any mean to lie to people when saying that 200-300 tons sauropods are factuals whereas they are merely hypothetical.
And frankly, being not happy with 90-150 tons figures and wishing always bigger and bigger is more and more ridiculous. But I bet that you'll become more rational and conservative with time.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jun 27, 2013 5:12:55 GMT 5
Hot damn man, you can't even comprehend that I have said they are hypothetical? I've made it clear countless times.. I have said many times, the estimates I give are not god-given facts, they are extrapolations based on the only published work we currently have on this animal, I have quoted the same "world references" you hold in such high esteem, and they also accept that Amphicoelias's length range could very well be in the 70-80 meter range, it's you who can't move past your biased position. EVERY step of my calculations are defensible and are the exact same as those used by Carpenter. If you treat mine as foolishness then you must hold Carpenter's work in the same regard. I would be perfectly happy with 90-150 tons (which is also hypothetical) if they seemed to be the most realistic, but from what I can gather from the well known morphology of diplodocids, a range of 150-250 seems more likely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 5:38:38 GMT 5
Hot damn man, you can't even comprehend that I have said they are hypothetical? I've made it clear countless times.. I have said many times, the estimates I give are not god-given facts, they are extrapolations based on the only published work we currently have on this animal, I have quoted the same "world references" you hold in such high esteem, and they also accept that Amphicoelias's length range could very well be in the 70-80 meter range, it's you who can't move past your biased position. EVERY step of my calculations are defensible and are the exact same as those used by Carpenter. If you treat mine as foolishness then you must hold Carpenter's work in the same regard. I would be perfectly happy with 90-150 tons (which is also hypothetical) if they seemed to be the most realistic, but from what I can gather from the well known morphology of diplodocids, a range of 150-250 seems more likely. Sometimes, there is just no debating with Grey. He rejects the possibility that the blue whale was NOT the largest. Even now, it's not the largest known, the average blue whale is only around ~60-65 tonnes in mass. Even Argentinosaurus was larger than that! The issue is that most people only selectively quote the largest blue whale sizes, therefore creating very biased results. |
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jun 27, 2013 5:45:20 GMT 5
Hot damn man, you can't even comprehend that I have said they are hypothetical? I've made it clear countless times.. I have said many times, the estimates I give are not god-given facts, they are extrapolations based on the only published work we currently have on this animal, I have quoted the same "world references" you hold in such high esteem, and they also accept that Amphicoelias's length range could very well be in the 70-80 meter range, it's you who can't move past your biased position. EVERY step of my calculations are defensible and are the exact same as those used by Carpenter. If you treat mine as foolishness then you must hold Carpenter's work in the same regard. I would be perfectly happy with 90-150 tons (which is also hypothetical) if they seemed to be the most realistic, but from what I can gather from the well known morphology of diplodocids, a range of 150-250 seems more likely. Yes, I regard people as foolish who use long lost fragments to estimate size. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 5:48:59 GMT 5
Hot damn man, you can't even comprehend that I have said they are hypothetical? I've made it clear countless times.. I have said many times, the estimates I give are not god-given facts, they are extrapolations based on the only published work we currently have on this animal, I have quoted the same "world references" you hold in such high esteem, and they also accept that Amphicoelias's length range could very well be in the 70-80 meter range, it's you who can't move past your biased position. EVERY step of my calculations are defensible and are the exact same as those used by Carpenter. If you treat mine as foolishness then you must hold Carpenter's work in the same regard. I would be perfectly happy with 90-150 tons (which is also hypothetical) if they seemed to be the most realistic, but from what I can gather from the well known morphology of diplodocids, a range of 150-250 seems more likely. Yes, I regard people as foolish who use long lost fragments to estimate size. Then you must regard anyone who estimates the size of the Spinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus holotypes as "foolish" then... |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 27, 2013 5:51:24 GMT 5
Hot damn man, you can't even comprehend that I have said they are hypothetical? I've made it clear countless times.. I have said many times, the estimates I give are not god-given facts, they are extrapolations based on the only published work we currently have on this animal, I have quoted the same "world references" you hold in such high esteem, and they also accept that Amphicoelias's length range could very well be in the 70-80 meter range, it's you who can't move past your biased position. EVERY step of my calculations are defensible and are the exact same as those used by Carpenter. If you treat mine as foolishness then you must hold Carpenter's work in the same regard. I would be perfectly happy with 90-150 tons (which is also hypothetical) if they seemed to be the most realistic, but from what I can gather from the well known morphology of diplodocids, a range of 150-250 seems more likely. Sometimes, there is just no debating with Grey. He rejects the possibility that the blue whale was NOT the largest. Even now, it's not the largest known, the average blue whale is only around ~60-65 tonnes in mass. Even Argentinosaurus was larger than that! The issue is that most people only selectively quote the largest blue whale sizes, therefore creating very biased results. Blue whale are 60-65 tonnes on average ?  Broly, when it comes about marine life and even animals, just don't argue. As a ultimate worshiper considering dinosaurs more like super heroes than animals, it's a long time I avoid to read you. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 27, 2013 5:53:22 GMT 5
Hot damn man, you can't even comprehend that I have said they are hypothetical? I've made it clear countless times.. I have said many times, the estimates I give are not god-given facts, they are extrapolations based on the only published work we currently have on this animal, I have quoted the same "world references" you hold in such high esteem, and they also accept that Amphicoelias's length range could very well be in the 70-80 meter range, it's you who can't move past your biased position. EVERY step of my calculations are defensible and are the exact same as those used by Carpenter. If you treat mine as foolishness then you must hold Carpenter's work in the same regard. I would be perfectly happy with 90-150 tons (which is also hypothetical) if they seemed to be the most realistic, but from what I can gather from the well known morphology of diplodocids, a range of 150-250 seems more likely. If you argue it is hypothetical, I agree. But when you argue "very possible", I can only laugh. And when you state that 150-250 tons seems more likely, despite I've posted twice the same recent total reversed summarize by Mike Taylor, I can only cry. |
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jun 27, 2013 5:53:50 GMT 5
Yes, I regard people as foolish who use long lost fragments to estimate size. Then you must regard anyone who estimates the size of the Spinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus holotypes as "foolish" then... Yes I consider size estimates of lost specimen such as these as problematic. Nevertheless they are far more acessible, as their write up is better and the circumstances of their disappearance clear. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 5:55:52 GMT 5
Sometimes, there is just no debating with Grey. He rejects the possibility that the blue whale was NOT the largest. Even now, it's not the largest known, the average blue whale is only around ~60-65 tonnes in mass. Even Argentinosaurus was larger than that! The issue is that most people only selectively quote the largest blue whale sizes, therefore creating very biased results. Blue whale are 60-65 tonnes on average ? Broly, when it comes about marine life and even animals, just don't argue. As a ultimate worshiper considering dinosaurs more like super heroes than animals, it's a long time I avoid to read you. Since when did I consider dinosaurs as superheroes? You are making a false accusation. Are you trying to spite me? This source: www.seaworld.org/infobooks/baleen/phycharbw.htmlSays ~64 tonnes. NOTE: STOP accusing me of being a fanboy out of spite. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 27, 2013 5:59:06 GMT 5
BTW, you two guys, you will not convince me like your buddies on CF that you were hacked on SV POW. That was just so flagrant !
The same writing, the same long boring arguments, the same time at writing on it, the same time at provoking a team of paleontologists and the same time at turning your minds and then claim about a hacker who, just by chance (!) and for some reason, hacked you too, at the same time here again !
Ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 27, 2013 6:02:10 GMT 5
Blue whale are 60-65 tonnes on average ? Broly, when it comes about marine life and even animals, just don't argue. As a ultimate worshiper considering dinosaurs more like super heroes than animals, it's a long time I avoid to read you. Since when did I consider dinosaurs as superheroes? You are making a false accusation. Are you trying to spite me? This source: www.seaworld.org/infobooks/baleen/phycharbw.htmlSays ~64 tonnes.
It's good to select the sources ! The Marine Mammal center : A good way to visualize their length is to remember that they are about as long as three school buses. An average weight for an adult is 200,000 to 300,000 pounds (100-150 tons).www.marinemammalcenter.org/education/marine-mammal-information/cetaceans/blue-whale.htmlOn average, adults weigh between 100 and 120 tonnes, and males are 23 metres long, while females are 24 metres.
www.teara.govt.nz/en/whales/page-2 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 6:03:05 GMT 5
BTW, you two guys, you will not convince me like your buddies on CF that you were hacked on SV POW. That was just so flagrant ! The same writing, the same long boring arguments, the same time at writing on it, the same time at provoking a team of paleontologists and the same time at turn your minds and then claim about a hacker who, just by chance (!) and for some reason, hacked you too, at the same time here again ! Ridiculous. Are you really going that low? The post was basically copied and pasted. Of course it would show the same style since it was basically just a simple copy and paste! I wasn't even aware to those posts on SVPOW until a few days after the impersonator trolls stopped posting! All that shows that you are simply being dense. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 27, 2013 6:10:45 GMT 5
BTW, you two guys, you will not convince me like your buddies on CF that you were hacked on SV POW. That was just so flagrant ! The same writing, the same long boring arguments, the same time at writing on it, the same time at provoking a team of paleontologists and the same time at turn your minds and then claim about a hacker who, just by chance (!) and for some reason, hacked you too, at the same time here again ! Ridiculous. Are you really going that low? The post was basically copied and pasted. Of course it would show the same style since it was basically just a simple copy and paste! I wasn't even aware to those posts on SVPOW until a few days after the impersonator trolls stopped posting! All that shows that you are simply being dense. Yes you were trolled by an impersonator. By chance only you and your pal were trolled, you two performing your own science in the subforum of CF... And curiously you two come right after on SV POW, apologize to the team, but then, slightly start again to infer the same arguments than those posted by the "troll" under your usernames. This hacker is just as extant as yours 250 tons sauropods. |
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Jun 27, 2013 6:27:18 GMT 5
Question. How would a species of land animals that could potentially reach sizes of up to two hundred tons be even capable of mating? Would a female be strong enough to support three hundred plus tons of weight? Would a two hundred ton male be even capable of rearing up on its hind legs?
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jun 27, 2013 6:32:26 GMT 5
Question. How would a species of land animals that could potentially reach sizes of up to two hundred tons be even capable of mating? Would a female be strong enough to support three hundred plus tons of weight? Would a two hundred ton male be even capable of rearing up on its hind legs? The limb strength of most animals is calibrated to withstand two times the stress during maximum speed. It is therefore plausible that mating is no that problematic, especially if you have a very long and flexible penis  |
|
