Tyrannosaurus rex

[johnny rex]

(10-17-2020, 04:47 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote:

Quote:I'm not sure if the one who makes the "corrections because they're inaccurate" are correct either, because we are dealing with fossils. Not living creatures.

Anything in particular you are referring to? I think I can be fairly certain that everything I had fixed was previously inaccurate and did have to be fixed. Let me know what you had in mind and I'll explain as best I can.

This. 

"Their model for Sue has the ribcage too wide; as they acknowledge themselves, "the torso of the mount is inflated in width due to a dorsal displacement of the transverse processes on the trunk vertebrae, which forced a dorsal displacement of the tubercular articulations and a lateral expansion of the rib cage as a whole."
By my measurement it's about 1.8 meters as opposed to 1.6 meters in Scott Hartman's model, so it's about 13% too wide.
-The dorsal ribs on the mount, instead of being angled backwards following Hartman, Larramendi, and Greg Paul's comment on the study, are strongly swept anteriorly, inflating the torso's volume. They're about 25% more anterior than the ribs in Hartman's, meaning the torso is 12.5% too voluminous with the rib articulation.
-Following Scott Hartman's standards for soft tissue, the torso and the neck seem (to me at least) to have about 10% too much of it.

The correction:
Sue's torso mass is listed as 5,560 kilograms for the minimal model. Applying each correction will result in a decrease in its overall volume as will be discussed below.

10% more spinal curvature: Volume reduction of 10%, meaning the mass is decreased to 5004 kilograms.
Deflating the ribcage 13%: Volume reduction of 13%, meaning the mass is reduced to 4428 kilograms.
Sweeping back the ribs 25%: Volume reduction of 12.5%, meaning the mass is reduced to 3936 kilograms.
10% less soft tissue on the torso and neck: The neck model is listed as 504 kilograms, and with the torso at 3936 kilograms, this reduces their volumes to 458 and 3578 kilograms, respectively.

Overall, correcting all of this, the minimal model is reduced by 2028 kilograms. Thus, with all these issues fixed, the minimal model for Sue of Hutchinson et al. ends up at 7472 kilograms, or 7.47 tonnes. Going by this, I would say that 7.47-8.4 tonnes is a good size range for Sue when considering both this and Hartman's model, with a mean of about 7.9 tonnes. Bear in mind that Scotty would have been about the same."

Hutchinson did said the torso is inflated due to the distortion of the vertebrae. But I didn't remember the weight is downgraded (maybe except by Gregory S Paul and some others). Then, you came up with your own opinion with calculations that the Tyrannosaurus rexes are actually weigh less than 8 tonnes. How did you got charcharodontosaurids are much heavier than these tyrannosaurs? By your own calculations again? Can you give me your own depiction of how a Tyrannosaurus would compare with a Giganotosaurus and a Carcharodontosaurus, maybe a picture? I wanna see that.

When I see weight estimations, I just don't pick several opinions of some people that aligned with my thoughts (that's what I see of most people). Because that would be bias. I will try to see both opinions from the people who make lower weight estimations and people who make higher weight estimations. And what I've found so far, the results are always gonna be different depending on the methods. Just like any experiments, with different methods you'll see different outcomes.

But judging solely from the skeletons, I'll say both of them almost weigh the same although with some minor differences. That's my opinion.  Reply