Size comparisons

[AndresVida]

(12-03-2021, 04:33 AM)DinoFan83 Wrote: I won't be replying directly to LoveAnimals or anyone with similar intentions since I don't have time to put up with things getting personal nor erroneous, definitive claims about what are nothing more than estimates.

In case you haven't noticed, there is nothing personal anymore as I said I don't waste my time repeating the same arguments to those who are not reasonable and have already proven to the whole world of paleontology that they are not.
Here it is only about science.

 And as I said, anti-science claims here are seen as JP3 Spino or JWD Giganotosaurus would be seen on a scientific paper.

If you don't have glasses that allow you to see and accept reality correctly:

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

That's not my problem and I'm sorry for you.
I ain't comparing an animal with bones thinner than a straw to the heavyweight bodybuilder of theropods which bone and body thickness would put at shame any Spinosaurus anymore.

It's not about not having time, it's about not being able to face me, cause I'm too much for you because even your claims based on thin air collapse in front of me. It's that you can't prove prove wrong a person who's speaking facts unless you find a concrete evidence that generates no disagreements among paleoartists and experts that 98% of them state the exact opposite of you.
You already know that my claims and my data (they are estimates yea but based at least on real evidence and studies made by neutral people, not personal things or stuff that your friend SIW, who is not a very different person from you, tells you in a way to help you) are basically too much for you to handle. As it has already happened.

Also you have to stop this victimism to try to make people feel more compassionate with you and interpreting any person that calls you out as an attacker. You can't expect a person to be patient enough to repeat the same thing over and over again so don't be surprised if so many other people here got tired of talking to you and just left the conversation. Thing I'm about to do as well.

Also, me being ERRONEOUS? Sorry but I'm not the one who just claimed that Sue, Scotty, and all the other super sized Rexes shouldn't be considered tyrannosaurus simply because they have different proportions than the holotype (note that you extrapolated a random average of 6,000 kg from a undersized and outdated Sue estimate at around 8200 kg, as Fran's latest equations put her/him at 9.7 - 9.9 tons with density equations so not only you use measurements and estimated made by people like SIW or GAT that nobody considers and nobody knows compared to Random Dinos or Franoys, but you basically use Scott Hartman's outdated data for Sue and then use the more inflated and recent estimates for the other theropods which is kind of unfair).
In case you haven't read my comment regarding the proportions in theropod fossils, happy reading.

(11-30-2021, 01:16 AM)LoveAnimals Wrote: Fragmentary pieces of bones from these huge animals DO NOT scale isometrically in Dinosaurs or in any living animal or extinct so using fragments is never very accurate.
Animals of same species are never perfect clones of each other.

And if you still don't understand, no animal is the perfect clone of the other even in terms of proportions, which can still differ considerably also due to age and hypothetical sex and the amount of weight they carry. 

Another hypothesis, the more correct one, is individual variation and nothing more which I'll talk to you later about it.
So considering your theory, Sue should also be of a different species from Scotty as they both have different proportions.

Scotty surpasses Sue in 13 bone measurements and that's just one example. 
Moving forward I can pull in other specimens that we have never mentioned, such as Walkel the tyrannosaurus. 
According to bone density, GDI and also skeletal made by Randomdinos, he is really thin and unimpressive for a tyrannosaurus rex and literally weighs about 1 ton less than the holotype (7.9 tons vs 6.9 tons) despite the size of the femur being just 3 cm inferior. 
He's a new species as well? 

Using your reasoning these 5 should all be different species of tyrannosaurs.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Don't you see how absurd this is or someone has to come and tell you? Huh?Don't worry that sooner or later someone other than me will come. No spoilers.

Also, methodology you used is using femur length to estimate body mass size, which is not always a good method and doesn't work for all theropods as it usually gives a much lower estimate.

Well, it can work with some theropods if it is done in a very accurate way, but it still wouldn't work for many theropods. 

Acrocanthosaurus is an example, Acrocanthosaurus 'Fran' ends up in the 2-3 tonne range under that method, despite being 6.5 tonnes roughly based off of GDI. Spinosaurus won't work as well. 

What you did was take Sue femur and take it's mass as 8200kgs. Then all you did was taking the average length for Rex femur and extracting the value for average bodymass from the undersized Sue.

Using that method all you can get accurately is the average femur length but not the mass since it does not work for all theropods.
SIW has a GDI where he used really soft and generous tissue (consider what Random said here)

*This image is copyright of its original author

but it still got a Bodymass estimate almost identical to the latest and most accurate one at this time, the one where you just divide all of Frans estimates by 0.912 and lastly multiply by 0.97.
But why did you still not use the estimates of SIW and made your own ones?

That's because you knew that even if you used Gdis by SiW you would have got way over 7000kgs, which is an average size you probably still can't accept for tyrannosaurus as it would rival too much (and probably even exceed) your favorite theropods.

Just as your claim of CM 9380's rib cage to be too large is totally unfounded as the only one we have with confirmation that it is too wide is Sue, with an estimated maximum of 18 tons which is ridiculous.

 Adjusted the rib cage in the proportions and adding Fran's latest bone density estimates you get about 9.7 tons.

Just saying, this below is outdated since it doesn't have the latest density equations updated by Franoys but even our undersized estimates are still way higher than yours.

And we might make a new one soon as well, thing I'll share in record time on here as it will be done.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xGqh6JEciRucCX6BE21b2cunJgQCkvvZ_BBk-BG8UOU/edit?usp=sharing Reply