|
Post by Grey on Oct 17, 2013 5:31:11 GMT 5
The numbers based on basking sharks (18m-63t) are pretty close to those derived from both the equation (18m-57t) in the paper I posted (which merelyhas a bigger sample than Gottfried et al. [1996] and should thus be preferred) and the direct sizing based on the average from Elasmollet (18m-61t). Gottfried actually appears to be the odd one out. Approximately 60t at 18m seems to be a pretty good value, despite the uncertainities. Ok no offense, but that's typically what I don't appreciate with you. I fully agree we can discuss about the solidity of Gottfried but in anycase you can debunk his works. They are used as standards in later papers and nothing better has been proposed since. You have to remember that Gottfried simply suggests a giant white shark bulkier than the modern white shark. The sample is enoughly big (175) to have a reasonnable idea of the weight given by the equation. With another comparable sample we could get a bit lower or a bit higher results. We don't have to take Gottfried works as written in stone but until someone produces more rigorous data, I assume we have to live with this. Even though I personnally tend to imagine meg built like a white shark, not really bulkier than it.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 17, 2013 16:22:40 GMT 5
I think rather than ranting on me ("that's typically what I don't appreciate with you"), you should read papers.
The regression I´m talking about is the exact same thing Gottfried did, just with a slightly bigger (ie. more reppresentative=probably better) sample. It also is in closer agreement with the other methods one could use, so I don´t see any reason not to favour it over Gottfried´s. In other words, that´s the best we have.
Seriously, did you even look at it?
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 17, 2013 16:48:07 GMT 5
I've read it a long ago, that was stomatopod who sent me that paper. And I've discussed it with Brett Kent. Kent did not use it as "a better data than Gottfried". There's no more data than Gottfried's, which does not mean it is absolutely valuable, but there's no other data to prefer, except educated guess placing megalodon at 50-60 tonnes, which I fully agree. What I recall is that various samples of comparable size can make somewhat fluctuating results. I recall too that Gottfried's me is an extrapolated great white, a steroid-Carcharodon, not a scaled up Carcharodon. Gottfried's meg is a bit shorter, a bit bulkier than what Siversson envisions, that's all.
So please don't start to make up datas, as we don't need to and that we are already agreed.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 17, 2013 22:58:21 GMT 5
The sole point is, that so called "educated guess" is in close agreement with another regression at least as valid and reliable as Gottfried's, unless you can give me any reason why it shouldn't be.
That's not "making up datas". It's simply stating the facts, which are that Gottfried's is not the only analysis of this kind, and that compared to other methods it seems quite high. Gottfried's megalodon estimates obviously do not base on the same tooth specimens, so you cannot say it's shorter and heavier. It's simply more bulky, something his regression indicated, and the one I showed you didn't.
The following part of your post doesn't make sense to me: "There's no more data than Gottfried's, which does not mean it is absolutely valuable, but there's no other data to prefer". There is more data than Gottfried, you even claim you knew it. That function (which is Mass(kg)=4.80376*10^-6*Tl(m)^3.0949) bases on a sample that's 14% bigger than Gottfrieds--and apart from that the same methodology. It should thus be preferred, and certainly Gottfried should not be claimed to be the only advanced means of estimate there is as of now (as you seem to do), unless you can give me a valid reason not to.
So what do you call "making up datas"?
btw, does anyone else have problems using Gottfried's formula for body mass? I always get completely different results from those in the paper, what am I making wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 18, 2013 4:12:18 GMT 5
There's not more rigorous data than Gottfried's. The other estimates from Siversson, Kent or others are merely valuable educated guess. I gave you the reasons in my last post, various large samples will give fluctuating figures. Which simply means that your results (if really you followed the same equation) are not better than Gottfried's, they are just as potentially true. And with another sample you'd have chances to get results slightly higher than Gottfried's. So don't start to bring in further discussion your results as a better data than Gottfried's. Every meg specialists I've talked with are aware of the 1985 doc you talk about and no one used it as a manner to update Gottfried works.
You should instead wonder why Gottfried et al. in 1996 actually did not use this sample from 1985 and instead took his datas from Compagno and Mollet.
We certainly can discuss the reliability Gottfried's prediction for a number of other reasons (size of the liver in that species, actual proportions depending the method of estimate, cardiovascular issues...) but don't start to act like if you had really updated Gottfried's works, you're not an authority yet.
While talking about megalodon's weight, any author still refers to Gottfried even if they precise the degree of uncertainty. I think you can understand that you're basically agreed with me so please don't respond arguing that you've actually updated Gottfried's data.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 18, 2013 17:06:21 GMT 5
They are slightly more reliable because they are in closer agreement with most other figures and because the sample is slightly bigger. That´s not different to comprehend opr even a subject to argue about.
I find it really funny how you call those "my results", always with this hint of me having made them up. This is simply disrespectful, nothing else.
Have you never wondered why people do NOT just use Gottfrieds method all the time (eg. Siverson), but give estimates closer to the 1985 regression.
It´s not my task to explain the reasoning with which scientists choose their data aquisition methods, you should be able to figure this out yourself, after all it´s closely linked to why they do science at all!
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 18, 2013 17:28:56 GMT 5
I gave a hint, if Siversson gives estimates slightly lower, this is not because of your extraordinary finding (as much as I've discussed with him you should understad that) but because he envisions it as less bulky than the steroid giant great white of Gottfried.
Your results are not more reliable, just comparable in solidity. Another sample could as well give results somewhat higher. Yes, that's your results, your data, that's not the data of another author.
No, you don't update Gottfried method, even though I fully agree and understand one can favor more conservative estimates. That's just your eternal ego to want make your own science.
I mean, I have nothing against that you use the equation on another sample and suggest then a lower figure, but you have no authority to state your results are better than those of Gottfried.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 18, 2013 18:14:53 GMT 5
Perhaps that in turn is because Gottfried is the only method that indicates this "steroid great white", while other comparable ones do not?
Shut up if you cannot read and just want to believe all this bullshit about me, and stop whining about how much you dislike me. Those are not "my results", and I have every right to prefer a figure when it is more consistent. You do the same in many other cases.
Give me something, anything, that favours Gotffried´s equation in exchange, and I will accept it. That would be a much better way to spend your precious time than repeating your old and ridiculous prejudices and arguing completely beside the point.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 18, 2013 19:18:04 GMT 5
Gottfried method is an extrapolated massive giant white shark. If you use the same method and equation you supposedly have to get a bulky white shark, not something more similar to Siversson figures. I will not repeat once again my statement, which is not beside the point. But yeah, you're all mighty and more reliable than Gottfried and Compagno. Now I will use your so valuable data instead of Gottfried. I will even send a mail to Gottfried explaining him you've OWNED him on this matter. You're a genius theropod, a true genius. Please, make me a 25 m pliosaur. Or give us a so rigorous estimate of you of megalodon weight based on the dogfish.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 18, 2013 19:35:31 GMT 5
You still don't get it, do you?
The 1985 equation is the same method of estimate, and yields no such thing. How do you explain that?
Once more, have a look at the freaking paper instead of wasting your time with defamatory comments.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 18, 2013 20:03:19 GMT 5
You still don't understand my arguments. Stimulate your mind...
But I don't care, if you want to think your data is better than Gottfried, then think it.
Kent :
Gottfried, et al. have the best data, although I'm always suspicious of extrapolating that far beyond the data. My gut feeling is that extrapolating this far produced are overly obese meg, and I'd guess 50-60 tons would be more realistic. There's no hard data for this, so until someone produces better data I can live with their higher weight estimates.
So I can too.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 18, 2013 20:15:02 GMT 5
How many times do I have to tell this to you? THIS IS NOT "MY" DATA. It is a published regression equation you were unable to show to be worse than Gottfrieds in any way. It is also in close agreement with Kent's guesstimates (ie. he also favours these estimates), so what do you want more?
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 18, 2013 20:18:11 GMT 5
I have not said it is worse, I said it is just as valuable in that you necessary get fluctuations.
I want you don't argue that this has to be prefered than Gottfried, while it is not.
I prefer 50-60 tonnes estimates but not based on your stuff which remains Gottfried's equation supposed to result in a very bulky shark.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 18, 2013 20:23:36 GMT 5
Above all, the point is that you should not all the time claim Gottfried's method was better for some reason (namely none). That would be a start. THIS IS NOT MY STUFF, WHEN WILL THIS GO INTO YOUR HEAD?
And now, give me a straight answer to my question. Why do you think a regression with a bigger sample and in closer agreement with estimates made by the majority of scientists is NOT more valid?
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 18, 2013 20:30:13 GMT 5
Because it is normal to have fluctuations. The bigger sample means nothing as 175 individuals is already well enough. And that's your stuff since the number you try to establish are not a data at all.
|
|