From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Seismo/ultrasaur weights, was Holden and the galloping elephant
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:19:11 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Aug11.094413@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
 
>> The conformation of elephants is an obvious adaptation to the full-grown
>> version/model.  If small ones cannot gallop, it's because of the conformation
>> NEEDED by large ones to keep legs directly under the vast bulk.
 
>   TED!!!  Do you realise that you just accepted that form does matter with
> strength!!!!  I am saving this!  Now, if Elephants can adapt to better weight
> load capacity, why not the seismosaur?

I can adapt to heat and cold, within reason.  I try to stay out of blast
furnaces...  that's not within reason.

The elephant has adapted to life in our world, barely.  For a seismosaur to
adapt to life in our world sufficiently to be able to stand, he would need a
Holden number (ratio of 2/3 power of weight to weight) greater than the ratio 
required by Bill Kazmaier to do one of his 1000 lb squats.

Almost three times greater.

And that cannot happen in our world.


> > Bullshit.  Again, I would read McGowen's book.  He not only gives a 180 ton
> > figure for the ultrasaur (that's 360,000 lbs), but a damned good explanation
> > of how that figure is derived.  He leaves NOTHING to the imagination.
 
> Ted, as I have pointed out before: lbs is a unit of force, not mass.  If the
>dinosaur weighs 360,000 lbs, it doesn't matter what gravity is. The felt effect
> of gravity being lower would just mean that the lb carries greater mass.

It would matter quite a lot whether or not he felt the gravity of another,
close astral body as a countervailing force to earth's gravity.  The one way
he'd live, the other he'd die.  That's what I've been saying.

 
> Are the Seismosaur and Ultrasaur the same shape?  

I can only go from the pictures I've seen, which aren't that much different.


> Also, is McGowan's estimate an accepted one?  Is  it an upper estimate?

I've seen the 300000 - 400000 figure for ultrasaurs in several places;  it
seems to be the accepted figure amongst most scientists involved in dinosaur
studies, and is derived from Archimedean methods...  basically you build
a model of your dinosaur and of a big elephant, both to scale, see how much
water each displaces, and multiply the weight of the elephant by the ratio 
you get.  I can't see how you'd go wrong that way myself.

There's another school of thought, however.  If you check out recent editions of
Guiness' Book of World Records, you'll find much lower weight estimates
for sauropods, and you'll notice that the claim is being made that these
estimates are made via a study of track depths.  

In fact, this is as I would expect;  a weight derived from such a method
would assuredly be influenced by a lesser felt effect of gravity in antique
times.  A weight derived via the Archimedean techniques would not be.

Guiness even goes on to say that nothing over around 130,000 lbs or so could
stand in the world, that in fact the legs it would take to hold him wouldn't
fit under him.  On that score, they or the scientists they employ to write
these articles are correct.  On the idea that sauropods really weighed as
little as they claim, and their estimates are WAY under those of McGowan, 
they're wrong.  The fact of the matter is that perceived gravity was less,
and track depths are shallower than they might otherwise have been.

Simple.



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins