Technical accuracy of size comparisons

[dinosauria101]

Well, okay. Only a few size charts a day.

I can also scale them multiple times to ensure they are correct.

[kekistani]

Feb 23, 2020 16:23:48 GMT 5 dinosauria101 said:

Feb 23, 2020 8:27:45 GMT 5 kekistani said:

1: That may have to do with the difference in drawings and the postures, as I said earlier. SIW also edited the neural spines to take out some 'weirdness' (may have been distortion) the dorsals had.

It's not the postures dude. They are clearly larger and wider.

Nonetheless, they're already very similar to the spines on Franoys' Tyrannotitan, and slightly shortening them won't make very much relevant mass difference. The animal would still be ~9 tonnnes.

No, they aren't, and the point isn't fixing the erronaeous mass, it's the fact that the skeletal is inaccurate.

2:

Never said it wasn't. But so is Larramendi's and SIW's.

*larramendi's

3: 9 tonnes is not an abomination. And just because they're the same species won't necessarily work if the authors restored them somewhat differently. SIW's is still closer to Tyrannotitan in build.

9 tonnes despite being less robust than a very similarly lengthed T.rex, with giant oversized neural spines, is an abomination.

4: Well, technically yes, but it doesn't really make much of a relevant difference, as does the Tyrannosaurs/Giganotosaurus example.

But it is a difference non the less.

If the author had gave 2.5% too much muscle to Tyrannosaurus and that much too little to Carcharodontosaurus, the animals would be the same size IRL. Same goes for Giganotosaurus and Tyrannosaurus except vice versa.

Or you know, make an inaccurate skeletal that then gets pushed as an "accurate and plausible" reconstruction despite being the exact opposit.

5: Not using ad nauseam here. 

Your constant repetition of a flimsy argument begs to differ.

6: May have to do with the edit. But even with the neurals trimmed as I said, not gonna make a difference.

It would make a difference if we used an accurate skeletal. Good to see that you're acknowledging the skeletal is inaccurate.

7: May have to do with the (relatively minor) edit.

above

8: I agree that 8% is implausible if we were to use GAT's - the animal is already 9 tonnes at 6.5% and it would get too slow to chase food and need too much of it if it got much bigger.
As for the skeletals, Franoys' is fine. I just prefer GAT's because it seems to be, well, a healthier animal. 

Franoy's is more accurate, not because it has "more flesh on its bones" but because it follows known skeletal remains and inferal and doesn't use ridiculous size estimates. No modern study supports a 9 tonne giganotosaur.

It's not inaccurate either; a 68 kg person can gain 7 kg, be 75 kg, and still be healthy. That also appears to be the case here.

Not a good analogy.

9: Refer to my posts on varying interpretation. Restoring fragmentary animals isn't a 1 way street.

Refer to cerato's post and my post. I find it funny you claim to not be using ad nauseam when you do this.

[creature386]

Feb 23, 2020 18:51:17 GMT 5 dinosauria101 said:

Well, okay. Only a few size charts a day.

I was actually thinking of like once a week (not a strict rule, just for general orientation). "A few size charts a day" is what you have been doing since the start of you creating size charts. This is a typical tactic of yours: Promising to change when you have no intention of doing so.
I get it, no matter how often it is repeated, you just don't get the criticisms. A clear case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Since it's unlikely you're going to follow my proposal, how about an own thread for your size comparisons so that they don't flood everything else? I recall messages from other posters who are de-motivated from posting their own size comparisons as they don't want them to be buried under yours. So, maybe at least that problem can be taken care of.

[dinosauria101]

Don't I usually post 5-6 a day? I meant only about 2 or 3 when I said that.

[Infinity Blade]

I have talked with creature386 regarding this matter, and I'm considering, alternatively, that dinosauria101's posts in the size comparison thread be moderated. As creature386 has stated earlier, the size comparisons he posts are mistake-prone, and therefore not images that can be consistently trusted. And ultimately, what goes into the size comparisons thread boils down to what we can rely upon as accurate.

This does not mean he can no longer post in the thread, he is just not allowed to create a size comparison himself and post it there. So for example, this-> would be acceptable. This-> no longer will.

[creature386]

I'm behind Infinity Blade's proposal of not letting him post his own size comparisons, in case anyone is curious. I have also decided against an own thread for them, as we have enough equivalents already.

[dinosauria101]

Feb 23, 2020 21:50:45 GMT 5 kekistani said:

Feb 23, 2020 16:23:48 GMT 5 dinosauria101 said:

1: It's not the postures dude. They are clearly larger and wider.


2: No, they aren't, and the point isn't fixing the erronaeous mass, it's the fact that the skeletal is inaccurate.

3:*larramendi's


4: 9 tonnes despite being less robust than a very similarly lengthed T.rex, with giant oversized neural spines, is an abomination.

5: But it is a difference non the less.

6: Or you know, make an inaccurate skeletal that then gets pushed as an "accurate and plausible" reconstruction despite being the exact opposit.

7: Your constant repetition of a flimsy argument begs to differ.

8: It would make a difference if we used an accurate skeletal. Good to see that you're acknowledging the skeletal is inaccurate.

9: Franoy's is more accurate, not because it has "more flesh on its bones" but because it follows known skeletal remains and inferal and doesn't use ridiculous size estimates. No modern study supports a 9 tonne giganotosaur.

10: Not a good analogy.

11: Refer to cerato's post and my post. I find it funny you claim to not be using ad nauseam when you do this.

1: It could be both - they were edited after all. As stated previously, I'll ask SIW about the edit.
2: I still find them reasonably similar but that might have to do with us being 2 different people and having 2 different perspectives.
And again, I will ask SIW. He likely has his reasons, and they are likely accurate.
3: Not necessarily 
4: Again, I will have to ask SIW about that. And, even with the neural spines cropped to match Franoys' Tyrannotitan and even out the supposed extra thickness, the animal still looks as though it'd mass about the same at length parity, which is in the ~9 tonne region SIW estimated when scaling from the Tyrannotitan.
Here's a chart to illustrate my point. Top is Franoys' Tyrannotitan, bottom is SIW's Carchar with the spines cropped.
5: Not really a relevant one.
6: May have missed the point a little - the mass of healthy adult animals varies over time, even in the short term. For instance, as Greg Paul points out in his 2019 Titanomass paper, it is better to state a sauropod masses 50-55 tonnes than just 52 or 53 due to this, and the same would apply to theropods. 
7: Refer to the final point for this.
8: No, that skeletal's not inaccurate nor is that what I am saying. There is likely a reason why SIW made the neurals as big as he did. And that's certainly not off the table.
9: So does GAT's. Both of them follow known remains, are of similar length (12.25 vs 12.33 meters), and therefore both can be considered reasonably accurate. Aside from the varying amount of muscle each seems to have used, I know of no significant differences between the 2.
And that's merely because GAT's skeletal hasn't been used in said studies - the MOST POPULAR skeletals are used, but that does not mean the others are inaccurate.
10: What would you consider a better analogy, then?
Or maybe this: soft tissue does not fossilize so we don't know exactly how much Giganotosaurus had. Franoys and GAT each try different amounts.
11: How about we just drop this? We've been going in circles on this point quite a bit, and I don't think we're going to convince each other really.

[kekistani]

Feb 23, 2020 22:53:37 GMT 5 dinosauria101 said:

Feb 23, 2020 21:50:45 GMT 5 kekistani said:

1: It could be both - they were edited after all. As stated previously, I'll ask SIW about the edit.

No, it is clearly not "both". the spines that are not hidden by the hips are evidently longer.

2: I still find them reasonably similar but that might have to do with us being 2 different people and having 2 different perspectives.
And again, I will ask SIW. He likely has his reasons, and they are likely accurate.

Moe like one actually reconstructed the animal closest to what is correct and the other didn't.

3: Not necessarily 

Yes neccessarily

4: Again, I will have to ask SIW about that. And, even with the neural spines cropped to match Franoys' Tyrannotitan and even out the supposed extra thickness, the animal still looks as though it'd mass about the same at length parity, which is in the ~9 tonne region SIW estimated when scaling from the Tyrannotitan.

It's not the neural spines adding weight, the fact that an animal barely longer than T.rex and far less robust somehow weighs more is fallacious.

Here's a chart to illustrate my point. Top is Franoys' Tyrannotitan, bottom is SIW's Carchar with the spines cropped.

Pointless

5: Not really a relevant one.

But a difference none the less.

6: May have missed the point a little - the mass of healthy adult animals varies over time, even in the short term. For instance, as Greg Paul points out in his 2019 Titanomass paper, it is better to state a sauropod masses 50-55 tonnes than just 52 or 53 due to this, and the same would apply to theropods. 

Except we aren't doing that here, are we?

7: Refer to the final point for this.

- proceeds to dodge the fact that he WAS indeed using ad nauseam

8: No, that skeletal's not inaccurate nor is that what I am saying. There is likely a reason why SIW made the neurals as big as he did. And that's certainly not off the table.

"Not off the table" is not the same as "scientifically supported. There is no evidence for neurals like this in any other giant carcharodontosaur apart from Acrocanthosaurus.

9: So does GAT's. Both of them follow known remains, are of similar length (12.25 vs 12.33 meters), and therefore both can be considered reasonably accurate. Aside from the varying amount of muscle each seems to have used, I know of no significant differences between the 2.

Or, you know, the fact that he's scaled MUCPV-95 to 8.8% larger despite this being not the case (and being pointed out to you quite a while ago). Franoys is far more accurate.

And that's merely because GAT's skeletal hasn't been used in said studies - the MOST POPULAR skeletals are used, but that does not mean the others are inaccurate.

Or, you know, because his aren't accurate

10: What would you consider a better analogy, then?
Or maybe this: soft tissue does not fossilize so we don't know exactly how much Giganotosaurus had. Franoys and GAT each try different amounts.

Not the one you used. ANd furthermore, I can slap on 20% more muscle mass onto sue and say it is "not off the table". THat does not make it accurate. Franoys is conservative and follows what is known. GAT's doesn't.

11: How about we just drop this? We've been going in circles on this point quite a bit, and I don't think we're going to convince each other really.

Keep replying with the same points over and over and will keep responding.

[kekistani]

Feb 23, 2020 22:23:01 GMT 5 Infinity Blade said:

I have talked with creature386 regarding this matter, and I'm considering, alternatively, that dinosauria101's posts in the size comparison thread be moderated. As creature386 has stated earlier, the size comparisons he posts are mistake-prone, and therefore not images that can be consistently trusted. And ultimately, what goes into the size comparisons thread boils down to what we can rely upon as accurate.

This does not mean he can no longer post in the thread, he is just not allowed to create a size comparison himself and post it there. So for example, this-> would be acceptable. This-> no longer will.

Big if true

[jdangerousdinosaur]

It would be great if he was finally moderated when it comes to his comparisons. Many of them have questionable accuracy while some just do not follow the most current science. He will most probably just navigate over to Wildfact or Reddit to carry on posting non-stop but at least something is finally being done here.

[creature386]

Feb 23, 2020 23:10:17 GMT 5 jdangerousdinosaur said:

He will most probably just navigate over to Wildfact or Reddit to carry on posting non-stop

I hope my compromise (from another thread not publicly visible) helps to mitigate this:

That doesn't mean you should flood other websites with your comparisons. The thing is, size comparisons meant to be scientific and unless it's pop science, science is generally meant to be serious. You have less serious options to indulge in your fantasies. You can let GreenArrow teach you in storytelling to write a story on an Mamenchisaurus squishing a Tyrannosaurus (or MUCPv-95 squishing B-rex). Or you can create another Rex-Wrecker. The criteria for this sort of stuff aren't as strict as for size comparisons and other members are more willing to tolerate it (unless you over-do it).

The fanboy thread was already meant to be a vehicle to turn his passion into something productive, but it seems like even that was a bit too serious.

[jdangerousdinosaur]

I don't see any issue with that ^

[dinosauria101]

Feb 23, 2020 23:05:29 GMT 5 kekistani said:

Feb 23, 2020 22:53:37 GMT 5 dinosauria101 said:

1: No, it is clearly not "both". the spines that are not hidden by the hips are evidently longer.

2: Moe like one actually reconstructed the animal closest to what is correct and the other didn't.

3: Yes neccessarily

4: It's not the neural spines adding weight, the fact that an animal barely longer than T.rex and far less robust somehow weighs more is fallacious.

5: Pointless

6: But a difference none the less.

7: Except we aren't doing that here, are we?

8: - proceeds to dodge the fact that he WAS indeed using ad nauseam

9: "Not off the table" is not the same as "scientifically supported. There is no evidence for neurals like this in any other giant carcharodontosaur apart from Acrocanthosaurus.

10: Or, you know, the fact that he's scaled MUCPV-95 to 8.8% larger despite this being not the case (and being pointed out to you quite a while ago). Franoys is far more accurate.
Or, you know, because his aren't accurate
Not the one you used. ANd furthermore, I can slap on 20% more muscle mass onto sue and say it is "not off the table". THat does not make it accurate. Franoys is conservative and follows what is known. GAT's doesn't.

1: Nope, they're about the same length as the others.
Regarding the size of the spines, I took a look at Franoys' Tyrannotitan and SIW's Carcharodontosaurus, and SIW's spines are only about 9% longer than one would expect scaling to the proper mass. I'm not SIW, but I think I know why this is - the larger an animal is, the larger (relative) support it would need to support its mass. A 9 tonne Carcharodontosaurus would likely need proportionately larger neurals than a 6.4 tonne Tyrannotitan since it is a larger animal.

2 and 3: Covered the thing on the neurals above and asked SIW (will post his answer when he responds). We don't know what the animal looked like - it could well have reached the upper size proposed.

4: Not necessarily - see what I said about isometric scaling earlier. Sue has a nearly 1 tonne weight advantage at the same length, and is therefore the more robust animal, but isometric scaling will hold up based on Tyrannotitan.

5: Whoops, forgot to post the comp. On top is Franoys, bottom SIW.


6: Not very much of one. There is a difference, but not really an IMPORTANT difference.

7: My mistake, but I don't INTEND as nauseam here. I'm addressing the points as they come to me.

8: That would apply to just about every animal - their masses vary over the short term, not just sauropods. Heck, it's even true for people! 

9: Refer to number 1
10: First of all, that 9 tonne Giganotosaurus I am referring to was not 8%. It was 6.5%.
What do you have that suggests GAT's is inaccurate anyway? Aside from the extra muscle it's very similar to Franoys'.
As for the muscle mass, it was not 20% more added - it was about 9.64% more added. This is normal for a healthy animal's short term size variation. 

[kekistani]

Feb 23, 2020 23:27:35 GMT 5 dinosauria101 said:

Feb 23, 2020 23:05:29 GMT 5 kekistani said:

1: Nope, they're about the same length as the others.
Regarding the size of the spines, I took a look at Franoys' Tyrannotitan and SIW's Carcharodontosaurus, and SIW's spines are only about 9% longer than one would expect scaling to the proper mass. I'm not SIW, but I think I know why this is - the larger an animal is, the larger (relative) support it would need to support its mass. A 9 tonne Carcharodontosaurus would likely need proportionately larger neurals than a 6.4 tonne Tyrannotitan since it is a larger animal.

No, they are not. the hip neurals ARE as long as the others, not sure what you tried to accomplish with this point.  No other carcharodontosaur has neurals like that apart from Acrocanthosaurus.


2 and 3: Covered the thing on the neurals above and asked SIW (will post his answer when he responds). We don't know what the animal looked like - it could well have reached the upper size proposed.But based on close relatives, it most likely did not.

4: Not necessarily - see what I said about isometric scaling earlier. Sue has a nearly 1 tonne weight advantage at the same length, and is therefore the more robust animal, but isometric scaling will hold up based on Tyrannotitan.

Wheee, so an inaccurate skeletal being upscaled using a different species gets a higher weight? That's a good sign that your skeletal is accurate/s. Carcharodontosaurus is less robust and barely longer than sue. It is not going to outweigh sue.


5: Whoops, forgot to post the comp. On top is Franoys, bottom SIW.

6: Not very much of one. There is a difference, but not really an IMPORTANT difference.

That does not change the fact that there is a difference. I do not care if it is important (though it is, as MUCPV-95 probably didn't outweigh Sue), only that there is a difference contrary to what you said.

7: My mistake, but I don't INTEND as nauseam here. I'm addressing the points as they come to me.

You're addressing the points by copy-pasting the same statement over and over. fFor somone who's not intending it, you're doing it very well. Your use of "again" implies that you are deliberately repeating the point.

8: That would apply to just about every animal - their masses vary over the short term, not just sauropods. Heck, it's even true for people! 

But that is not what we have done here. You repeat a very EXACT mass measurement for sue and therefore should do the same for Carcharodontosaurus or any other giant carnosaur. Of course, I'm not going to do what you want me to so I'm going to continue massing things the way I have been.

9: Refer to number 1

No actual point made

10: First of all, that 9 tonne Giganotosaurus I am referring to was not 8%. It was 6.5%.

In the scale the animal is listed to 8.8% (not accurate). IK you were scaling it to 6.5% to try and make yourself look conservative while using the meatiest reconstruction possible.

What do you have that suggests GAT's is inaccurate anyway? Aside from the extra muscle it's very similar to Franoys'.

The fact that it has excess added musculature and does not include the full skeletal

As for the muscle mass, it was not 20% more added - it was about 9.64% more added. This is normal for a healthy animal's short term size variation. 

Read what I posted again. It's not about Giganotosaurus. If you're going to misinterpret (or deliberately misconstrue, as you have done in the past) my statements, do it in a realistic fashion. You're just making yourself look like a clown RN.

>asks to drop it

>is told to stop replying and the conversation will stop

>still replies

Big Kek

[dinosauria101]

Feb 23, 2020 23:45:58 GMT 5 kekistani said:

Feb 23, 2020 23:27:35 GMT 5 dinosauria101 said:

1: No, they are not. the hip neurals ARE as long as the others, not sure what you tried to accomplish with this point.  No other carcharodontosaur has neurals like that apart from Acrocanthosaurus.


2 and 3: Covered the thing on the neurals above and asked SIW (will post his answer when he responds). We don't know what the animal looked like - it could well have reached the upper size proposed.2: But based on close relatives, it most likely did not.


3: Wheee, so an inaccurate skeletal being upscaled using a different species gets a higher weight? That's a good sign that your skeletal is accurate/s. Carcharodontosaurus is less robust and barely longer than sue. It is not going to outweigh sue.


4: That does not change the fact that there is a difference. I do not care if it is important (though it is, as MUCPV-95 probably didn't outweigh Sue), only that there is a difference contrary to what you said.

5: You're addressing the points by copy-pasting the same statement over and over. fFor somone who's not intending it, you're doing it very well. Your use of "again" implies that you are deliberately repeating the point.

6: But that is not what we have done here. You repeat a very EXACT mass measurement for sue and therefore should do the same for Carcharodontosaurus or any other giant carnosaur. Of course, I'm not going to do what you want me to so I'm going to continue massing things the way I have been.

7: No actual point made

8: In the scale the animal is listed to 8.8% (not accurate). IK you were scaling it to 6.5% to try and make yourself look conservative while using the meatiest reconstruction possible.

9: The fact that it has excess added musculature and does not include the full skeletal

10: Read what I posted again. It's not about Giganotosaurus. If you're going to misinterpret (or deliberately misconstrue, as you have done in the past) my statements, do it in a realistic fashion. You're just making yourself look like a clown RN.

11: >asks to drop it

>is told to stop replying and the conversation will stop

>still replies

Big Kek

1: I meant they were not longer, not that they were shorter.
And the neurals are not Acrocanthosaurus level - they are intermediate between Tyrannotitan and Acrocanthosaurus but closer to Tyrannotitan. And again, there is reason to think that this recons' greater size would mean larger neural spines due to the extra mass. 
2: SIW's is very much on the table, for the many reasons I have explained.
3: It is very possible that it would outweigh Sue; the skeletal is fairly robust and that is what isometrically scaling from a similarly built animal suggests.
4: I get it, a difference but a small one.
5: No copypaste going on here.
As for the 'again', I don't intend to be using it as ad nauseum although I may be doing so unwillingly. I can just drop the point(s) where I or we have been repeating back and forth w/o getting anywhere.
6: Yes, I do do that. The reason I say this, however, is to point the differences may be either nonexistent or opposite to what we think. We can certainly keep using exact weights, but that's just something to keep in mind.
7: My point would probably be that this animal's relatives (Tyrannotitan) suggest large neural spines, further backed up by the larger size of the recon which would suggest making the spines larger and thicker.
8: The GDI fixes it - GAT's skeletal as is does have the animal to 8%, but the GDI has edited soft tissue based on other recons AFAIK. Only 6.5% is needed in the GDI for a 9 t animal.
BTW, the reason I consider 8% larger MUCPv-95 unlikely is due to the mass of the animal that GAT's recon gives it, not the nature of the fossil - at 6.5%, it's already a 9 tonne animal and it doesn't make much sense for giant cursorial theropods like carnosaurs and tyrannosaurs to exceed this, since they would need too much food and be too slow to chase it. 
Although the bone itself suggests 6.5%, it could well belong to an animal 8+ percent larger with a proportionately smaller head and jaw.
9: That's not 'excess' musculature - the exact amount is debatable since it does not fossilize. It's very possible that's what the animal was like in life, while I find the recons of ~6.8 tonnes doubtful (not impossible however) as they have relatively less muscle in parts than one would expect (Scott Hartman's Giganotosaurus belly and pubis is a good example of this).
As for not the full skeletal, it's just shadowed out as a schematic AFAIK. There is a difference between skeletals and schematics, and schematics only show the preserved bones with everything shaded that isn't preserved. They are perfectly usable as well.
10: This is not deliberate.
As for what you said and the part about Sue I did not address, the reason why that is implausible is due to the size of the animal - as I went over earlier, it makes little ecological sense for cursorial theropods to get much over 9 tonnes, since they'd get too slow to chase their food and need too much of it. There's also differing musculature - all Sue skeletals I know of seem to have sufficient musculature and they get masses ~8-8.4 tonnes, give or take some, while the 6.8 tonne Giganotosaurus are lacking in the musculature.
11: I was referring only to that last point.
But you know what, I seriously doubt either one of us can convince the other as we've gone on and on and on nonstop for what, 5 days? on both here and elsewhere. I'm calling it a draw for now.
Use Franoys if you so choose, I won't fault you for it. But I doubt all this bickering will actually get us anywhere.