|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 1, 2014 17:34:24 GMT 5
Started by thesporerex on Carnivoraforum. Title explains all. I'll start, how massive was Baurusuchus, and did it really have a build like the below picture? Image by felipe-elias.
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 2, 2014 13:13:48 GMT 5
According to the majority of data online, Baurusuchus averaged about 3.5 meters (11.5 feet) in length and weighed about 200 kg (440 lbs) in weight (and that would have been an average adult male specimen). Large ones grew beyond 4 meters (13.1 feet) and 227 kg (500 lbs) in size. As for its build, quite impressive even for such a large animal; That is all I can say about the animal. I can't answer more than that.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 23, 2014 5:00:01 GMT 5
I may sound stupid for this, but
Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real attempted to give a scientific explanation as to how their hypothetical dragons are able to breathe fire. But is it actually plausible? Just the idea of fire through a throat......
|
|
|
Post by mechafire on Mar 23, 2014 8:21:51 GMT 5
Breathing fire would burn its teeth, internal organs, face, prey, destroy forests, mountains, etc., and put itself in severe risk of getting burned.
Considering their build (long legs, etc), they probably run a lot faster than modern lions. How fast do you think the american lion can run?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2018 9:02:52 GMT 5
What's the line between art and not art?
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 15, 2018 14:39:09 GMT 5
This is very subjective. To me, it doesn't depend on quality, but on intent. If it has the intent to be art, it is art.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Oct 7, 2018 22:39:20 GMT 5
Might be a dumb question, but if you went back in time to the Mesozoic, could you live off of any of the flora that lived then? Like, any fruits, vegetables, or tubers? There weren't even any angiosperms in the Triassic, Jurassic, and early on in the Cretaceous, so how would you cope with the plant matter then?
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 7, 2018 23:32:59 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Dec 13, 2018 22:46:10 GMT 5
So, you all are familiar with how medieval*, early modern, and even late modern (what I've read about the cleanliness of Victorian England, especially, was not flattering) Europe (at least in some regions) wasn't exactly the most clean, sanitary place ever? Were there any other places ( i.e. not in Europe) in the past where the amount of filth, levels of hygiene, and sanitation was the same as in medieval and early-late modern Europe? Obviously no time and place from the distant past was clean or sanitary by modern standards, but I'm talking places where filth and bad hygiene really stuck out. I tried using one of TV Tropes' pages (focusing on the real life examples, obviously) to help me out, but I'd like to see reliable sources. Only two (at least potential) places come to mind, namely industrial New York (having watched a documentary on that) and seemingly Heian period Japan in certain regards (that was one source I did find from TV Tropes). *Perhaps overplayed for the Middle Ages ( link), but of course cleanliness, hygiene, and sanitation was still not up to par with today's standards, and some places in medieval Europe (e.g. 14th century London, having watched a documentary on that as well) do seem to have been quite filthy.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jan 27, 2019 23:17:00 GMT 5
So, I know that when you have no idea how old something is (which was the case before we found the true age of fossils, rocks, etc.), you use multiple different methods that overlap in the time periods in which they are useful; if the results are consistent you have a good idea of the age of the object, but if not the sample is either contaminated or out of the age range of at least some of the dating methods. If you suspect the latter, you use other kinds of dating methods that overlap in time, and then see if you get consistent results. Once you do, you have an idea of how old the sample is.
So how did we figure out what intervals of time a radiometric dating method is useful? Did we just date a whole bunch of stuff, see through "trial and error" (for lack of a better term) what times different methods give consistent results, and then map out what time periods different methods are useful in? Or was it through another way?
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 28, 2019 1:36:22 GMT 5
When a radioisotope has a very short half-time, it is sometimes not even possible to accurately determine its concentration in older rocks. Similarly, some radioisotopes decay so slowly that you need long timeframes for your instruments to determine meaningful differences. What is worse, there can be background processes that very slightly alter the isotope ratios.
To give you an example, let's look at radiocarbon dating. As we all know, carbon-14 is produced in the atmosphere, breathed in by plants and eaten by animals. It decays into nitrogen. By measuring the 14C/14N ratio in a dead animal, scientists can determine its age, provided it got all of its carbon-14 before its death. And here's the problem: There are processes in the ground unrelated to those in the atmosphere which can produce more carbon-14 in old deposits. By that, I mean nuclear reactions involving alpha particles and free neutrons (which are produced by the decay of Uranium or Thorium). Here are a few examples: 17O + n → 14C + α 14N + n → 14C + p 13C + n → 14C 11B + α → 14C + n 226Ra → 212Pb + 14C Now, the amount of 14C is negligible. However, if almost all of the atmospheric 14C has decayed, such 14C will be all you measure.
So, yeah, the exact application ranges are probably measured by trial and error, however, this theoretical understanding helps us realize that the inconsistencies are not jut results of the scientist's incompetence.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 28, 2019 2:25:38 GMT 5
How many Megistotherium to beat an Ankylosaurus?
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Feb 3, 2019 20:09:43 GMT 5
Two months ago I had started my own WordPress blog and today I've finally gotten around to posting about something. I was wondering if you could help me find any errors or help me improve it so I don't make myself look like an idiot (even though probably no one's going to read it).
Here's the blog post as it is right now (saved but not posted):
More specifically, I'm interested in providing a better explanation for why bite force does not scale so simply with body mass (I don't want to simply say "square cube law"), and why we would use the "true" formula I have above. Of course, any other edits are welcome.
I do want to make note of two things: one, I actually think their body mass for Stan is too high and I know I'm comparing a dry skull estimate for the tyrannosaurid with an in vivo measurement for the finch. But for the sake of argument, I didn't even bother mentioning these (and Sakamoto et al. might have a good explanation for using their own dry skull estimates as legitimate absolute bite force figures for the animals they studied).
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Feb 4, 2019 0:20:12 GMT 5
If I’m understanding you correctly and what you want is explain why there is such a thing as the square-cube-law in the first place, I think I’d use a simple rope-analogy.
Just like the tensile strength of a rope is proportional to its cross-sectional area, not its overall volume (the rope doesn’t become any weaker just because its shorter, that much should be obvious to anybody), the tension of a muscle is proportional to its cross-sectional area, not its mass. The cross-section determines the number of muscle fibres, and force is proportional to the number of recruited muscle fibres (that is just like more people pulling on something will obviously pull with more force).
Also based on the exact figures cited I’m getting a factor of 301 (8 000 000/33*70.77)/57 000=300.98
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 4, 2019 3:24:00 GMT 5
The rope analogy is quite good. If you want to go more in-depth on the physics behind it, you could mention that it is technically not force, but pressure that decides if an object is deformed or not. Remember the definition of force is acceleration times mass while pressure is force per area. The force of a bullet is not that high, as it is so light, but the force is spread over a very low area. A bite does not just produce force but also pressure to its muscles. The thinner the muscles are, the more pressure they take and muscles can only take so much pressure before they break. If you want to derive your equation, I have a simple task for you: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_cube_law#DescriptionLook at the equations Wikipedia cites. Replace "volume" with "mass" and "area" with "force". Then solve both equations after l 1/l 2 and equate them. If you're aiming for a more casual "blog post" tone, you could introduce the issue by saying "To those unfamiliar with the 'square-cube law', have you ever wondered why elephants are so much beefier than ants? Or why being really big with a longer stride does not make you the fastest? Or why kaijus only exist in movies? All these questions can be answered through simple physics and mathematics."
|
|