Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Spinosaurus aegyptiacus v Tyrannosaurus rex
Topic Started: Jan 7 2012, 02:16 AM (459,378 Views)
Wolf Eagle
Member Avatar
M E G A P H Y S E T E R
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tyrannosaurus rex
Tyrannosaurus is a genus of coelurosaurian theropod dinosaur. The species Tyrannosaurus rex (rex meaning "king" in Latin), commonly abbreviated to T. rex, is a fixture in popular culture. It lived throughout what is now western North America, with a much wider range than other tyrannosaurids. Fossils are found in a variety of rock formations dating to the Maastrichtian age of the upper Cretaceous Period, 67 to 65.5 million years ago.[1] It was among the last non-avian dinosaurs to exist before the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. Like other tyrannosaurids, Tyrannosaurus was a bipedal carnivore with a massive skull balanced by a long, heavy tail. Relative to the large and powerful hindlimbs, Tyrannosaurus forelimbs were small, though unusually powerful for their size, and bore two clawed digits. Although other theropods rivaled or exceeded Tyrannosaurus rex in size, it was the largest known tyrannosaurid and one of the largest known land predators. By far the largest carnivore in its environment, Tyrannosaurus rex may have been an apex predator, preying upon hadrosaurs and ceratopsians, although some experts have suggested it was primarily a scavenger. The debate over Tyrannosaurus as apex predator or scavenger is among the longest running in paleontology. Tyrannosaurus rex was one of the largest land carnivores of all time; the largest complete specimen, FMNH PR2081 ("Sue"), measured 12.8 metres (42 ft) long, and was 4.0 metres (13.1 ft) tall at the hips. Mass estimates have varied widely over the years, from more than 7.2 metric tons (7.9 short tons), to less than 4.5 metric tons (5.0 short tons), with most modern estimates ranging between 5.4 and 6.8 metric tons (6.0 and 7.5 short tons). Packard et al. (2009) tested dinosaur mass estimation procedures on elephants and concluded that dinosaur estimations are flawed and produce over-estimations; thus, the weight of Tyrannosaurus could be much less than usually estimated. Other estimations have concluded that the largest known Tyrannosaurus specimens had a weight exceeding 9 tonnes.

Posted Image

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus
Spinosaurus is a genus of theropod dinosaur which lived in what is now North Africa, from the lower Albian to lower Cenomanian stages of the Cretaceous period, about 112 to 97 million years ago. Spinosaurus may be the largest of all known carnivorous dinosaurs, even larger than Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus. Estimates published in 2005 and 2007 suggest that it was 12.6 to 18 metres (41 to 59 ft) in length and 7 to 20.9 tonnes (7.7 to 23.0 short tons) in weight. The skull of Spinosaurus was long and narrow like that of a modern crocodilian. Spinosaurus is thought to have eaten fish; evidence suggests that it lived both on land and in water like a modern crocodilian. The distinctive spines of Spinosaurus, which were long extensions of the vertebrae, grew to at least 1.65 meters (5.4 ft) long and were likely to have had skin connecting them, forming a sail-like structure, although some authors have suggested that the spines were covered in fat and formed a hump. Multiple functions have been put forward for this structure, including thermoregulation and display. Dal Sasso et al. (2005) assumed that Spinosaurus and Suchomimus had the same body proportions in relation to their skull lengths, and thereby calculated that Spinosaurus was 16 to 18 meters (52 to 59 ft) in length and 7 to 9 tonnes (7.7 to 9.9 short tons) in weight. The Dal Sasso et al. estimates were criticized because the skull length estimate was uncertain, and (assuming that body mass increases as the cube of body length) scaling Suchomimus which was 11 meters (36 ft) long and 3.8 tonnes (4.2 short tons) in mass to the range of estimated lengths of Spinosaurus would produce an estimated body mass of 11.7 to 16.7 tonnes (12.9 to 18.4 short tons).

Posted Image
Edited by Taipan, Apr 24 2015, 10:10 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
TheROC
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Taurus
Feb 3 2012, 12:16 PM
Don't Spino's sizes get changed all times? I won't hold my breathe if the new size is accuate. Anyways the only advantage Spino has is just size but it's also disadvantage too.
No, the length estimates have not changed.

The only thing being figured out is its overall proportions at the moment.

The Stromer holotype is purported to be a subadult as well.

Size and strength are the advantages. Height as well going by the chart. And reach, and having large arms that can be raised up to be level with the Rex's head. And no, at this scale all animals are extremely unagile as a rule by the square-cube law and thus any extra size at this point is more of an advantage than a disadvantage for face to face encounters.

Only if we were dealing with them on the scale of say, an emu vs an ostrich (comparable weight disparity), would agility actually be a factor, since they would be small enough to better handle their weight.
Edited by TheROC, Feb 3 2012, 12:27 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anomonyous
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
genao87
Jan 8 2012, 03:03 AM
FireEel
Jan 7 2012, 11:01 PM
With the recent revisions to the max size of T.rex(from 7 tonnes > 9.5 tonnes or more), I give T.rex a very high chance of winning now.
that is just a calculation method that is new. it hasnt been applied to other dinosaurs yet.

if T.Rex weigh more then so would other dinosaurs under this new method of calculating weight. So far they have not calculated the weights of Spino, Giga, Carcha, or any other dino. Using also square cubes law, it is all pointing to a very large Spino which this new Calculating weight method is saying as well that the dinos were somewhat heavier.


As for byte force, it is believe that both Spino and T. Rex had about the same bought force, though T. Rex have some studies showing to be a bit higher than Spino.
Same bite force? I hope you don't mean that. Spinosaurus' bite force likely does not exceed 3 tons. Tyrannosaurus? Probably at least 6 tons, with some studies even suggesting 25 tons.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anomonyous
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
TheROC
Jan 13 2012, 08:39 AM
A single bite would win ONLY if it bit the neck or head.

A single bite to the flanks won't be particularly detrimental, seeing as T.Rex cannot open its mouth very wide and Spinosaurus' flanks are much wider than the maximum gape of its mouth. They'll be 'pinching' bites with its front teeth at best, which won't go deep at all by virtue.

On the other hand, Spinosaurus' at least double weight advantage, will allow it to knock the Rex down. And a knockdown would be guaranteed win, as that fall alone will be enough to break the T.Rex's ribs.

Both are lumbering, neither can turn quick, so there will be no 'outmaneuvering' at this size scale. Neither will be able to avoid contact with the other if they only start, say, 10 meters apart.
First, neither can bite the other's flanks. Spinosaurus can bite tyrannosaurus' neck or head. (note that their are some other areas that are not viable or practical options)

Tyrannosaurus can bite the neck, chest, and possibly head.

Spinosaurus knocking tyrannosaurus over? Please, don't. Tyrannosaurus is faster and has binocular vision. Spinosaurus probably ran at 15 mph. It'd get bitten the crap out of.

The fall alone would not be enough to cause serious harm. The theory that tyrannosaurus would kill itself if it fell only applies to running, and running 40 mph at that, although a trip while running at 25 mph is still very likely to be fatal.

While tyrannosaurus cannot turn around in a circle from the same point very quickly, it can simply sidestep by placing 1 foot to its side, then the other. Spinosaurus can as well but of course that would not be as quick.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anomonyous
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
SameerPrehistorica
Jan 15 2012, 10:41 PM
Tyrannosaurus would win mostly if the Spinosaurus weighs equally or a bit more..But its not possible to beat a 20 tonne Spinosaurus because size always matters.That is thrice the size of T.Rex. Recently read a news that T.Rex weighs more than thought. It seems T.Rex weighs 10 tonnes.Not sure if it is the average weight of female T.Rex or its just some female T.Rex weighs 10 tonnes.Eventhough Spinosaurus is twice the size.


90 % win for Tyrannosaurus ( 6 tonnes ) against Spinosaurus ( 6 tonnes or more )

25 % win for Tyrannosaurus ( 6 tonnes ) against Spinosaurus ( 20 tonnes )

75 % win for Tyrannosaurus ( 10 tonnes ) against Spinosaurus (10 tonnes or more )

50 % win for Tyrannosaurus ( 10 tonnes ) against Spinosaurus ( 20 tonnes )


9 tons, and it seems like something of an overestimate to me. A 20 ton spinosaurus is absurd, but does that even matter? We know the height and that's all we really need. Weight and bodily strength won't do spinosaurus good. They are biting, not wrestling.

I'd appreciate if everybody could refrain from the "Well tyrannosaurus wins at parity..." comments. They're not at parity. A lion would win against an elephant at parity.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anomonyous
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
genao87
Jan 15 2012, 11:13 PM


Quote:
 


That is a new calculation that estimated T. Rex to be 9 tons, that same calculation will be applied to others such as Spino, Carcha, Giga. All dinos are heavier under this new method.

How you figure 25% win for T. Rex if it weigh 6 tons against 20 tons Spino? At that size difference you would be lucky if there is 1% on T. Rex size. The same goes for the 10 ton vs 20 ton estimate. T. Rex has small chance, you talking about facing an animal twice its size. At that size as well, both would be slow and heck man, it would be two rocks colliding, the larger rock would win the majority, practically all the time at size difference.
First off, Thomas Holtz noted that tyrannosaurus' leg muscles were especially powerful and that out of the theropods, it could probably support the most weight compared to other dinosaurs for its size. Just because tyrannosaurus' weight increases by a third doesn't mean spinosaurus' will as well.

Second, (as I have always argued) weight has no bearing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anomonyous
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
apexpredator7
Jan 16 2012, 04:22 AM
apexpredator7
Jan 14 2012, 01:38 AM
The size advantage is way too great trex is overrated severely
I think the alleged size difference is what makes the spino overrated IMO
spino overatted :huh: , trex is overated infact the most overated thing EVER so many people dote on it because of it being the top carnivore in their childhood this needs be got over seriosly how can you say spino is overated against a trex???? trex used to be the best predator but now animals have been discovered which are superior [/quote]My god, how old are you? There is no "best" or "superior" predator. One cannot deem spinosaurus to be superior to tyrannosaurus, nor vice-versa.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bright Nights
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
DinosaurMichael
Feb 3 2012, 12:24 PM
Bright Nights
Feb 3 2012, 12:17 PM
Tyrannosaurus rex is the ultimate land predator; grows up to 8 tons, with 10-inch horn-like teeth, and 3 metric tons of force behind those jaws.

I think it could inflict serious wounds on Spinosaurus, but if Spinosaurus can knock the T. rex over with it's overwhelming size, I say he can will as well.
Um doesn't T-Rex have a bite force of 6-7 tons? That's what I heard.
Nah, I've never heard of such a fantastic figure.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DinosaurMichael
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Bright Nights
Feb 3 2012, 03:36 PM
DinosaurMichael
Feb 3 2012, 12:24 PM
Bright Nights
Feb 3 2012, 12:17 PM
Tyrannosaurus rex is the ultimate land predator; grows up to 8 tons, with 10-inch horn-like teeth, and 3 metric tons of force behind those jaws.

I think it could inflict serious wounds on Spinosaurus, but if Spinosaurus can knock the T. rex over with it's overwhelming size, I say he can will as well.
Um doesn't T-Rex have a bite force of 6-7 tons? That's what I heard.
Nah, I've never heard of such a fantastic figure.
Oh alright then. Though I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anomonyous
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Bright Nights
Feb 3 2012, 03:36 PM
Nah, I've never heard of such a fantastic figure.
I have. 3 tons is a severe underestimate; that's like a large crocodile's bite. 3 tons probably doesn't even come close. At the very least, tyrannosaurus' bite force would be something around 5 tons.

This study suggests 24 tons.

http://www.livescience.com/1557-rex-secret-weapon-discovered.html

Note that is suggests tyrannosaurus also had a very powerful neck, and from what I've seen this appears to be true. The second smallest neck vertebrae is about the size of the average giganotosaurus neck vertebrae.

Edited by Anomonyous, Feb 4 2012, 07:54 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Apex
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Anomonyous
Feb 3 2012, 01:09 PM
apexpredator7
Jan 16 2012, 04:22 AM
apexpredator7
Jan 14 2012, 01:38 AM
The size advantage is way too great trex is overrated severely
I think the alleged size difference is what makes the spino overrated IMO
spino overatted :huh: , trex is overated infact the most overated thing EVER so many people dote on it because of it being the top carnivore in their childhood this needs be got over seriosly how can you say spino is overated against a trex???? trex used to be the best predator but now animals have been discovered which are superior


just to say due to some glitch it wasnt me who said spino was overated spino i think is very underated
Edited by Apex, Feb 5 2012, 06:24 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bright Nights
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Anomonyous
Feb 4 2012, 07:46 AM
Bright Nights
Feb 3 2012, 03:36 PM
Nah, I've never heard of such a fantastic figure.
I have. 3 tons is a severe underestimate; that's like a large crocodile's bite. 3 tons probably doesn't even come close. At the very least, tyrannosaurus' bite force would be something around 5 tons.

This study suggests 24 tons.

http://www.livescience.com/1557-rex-secret-weapon-discovered.html

Note that is suggests tyrannosaurus also had a very powerful neck, and from what I've seen this appears to be true. The second smallest neck vertebrae is about the size of the average giganotosaurus neck vertebrae.

Oh no, man. 24 tons can't be true at all. The most powerful bite in the world, by a 67 foot, 103 tonne C. megalodon, was estimated at almost 20 tons.

It's so unreal, it can't be true.

Now to come to think of it, 5 or 6 tons does sound about right, as it falls within the general range of the T. rex bite based on Erickson (1996) and Meers (2002).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rodentsofunusualsize
Member Avatar
cogcaptainduck
[ *  *  * ]
A 4-7 tonne bite force sounds the most realistic. Anything over fifteen is just fanciful.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anomonyous
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
I'm not saying the paper was correct, but 13 tons is not impossible.

A 7-9 ton bite seems most likely.
Edited by Anomonyous, Feb 6 2012, 02:57 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
genao87
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Anomonyous
Feb 3 2012, 12:53 PM
genao87
Jan 8 2012, 03:03 AM
FireEel
Jan 7 2012, 11:01 PM
With the recent revisions to the max size of T.rex(from 7 tonnes > 9.5 tonnes or more), I give T.rex a very high chance of winning now.
that is just a calculation method that is new. it hasnt been applied to other dinosaurs yet.

if T.Rex weigh more then so would other dinosaurs under this new method of calculating weight. So far they have not calculated the weights of Spino, Giga, Carcha, or any other dino. Using also square cubes law, it is all pointing to a very large Spino which this new Calculating weight method is saying as well that the dinos were somewhat heavier.


As for byte force, it is believe that both Spino and T. Rex had about the same bought force, though T. Rex have some studies showing to be a bit higher than Spino.
Same bite force? I hope you don't mean that. Spinosaurus' bite force likely does not exceed 3 tons. Tyrannosaurus? Probably at least 6 tons, with some studies even suggesting 25 tons.
Anonymous, I know you are a giant T.Rex guy who thinks T. Rex can beat dinos or other animals 20 tons or twice its size.

Have you forgotten the studies brought by Big Al and few other posters? Spino's bite force was estimated around 3 tons, while T.Rex can be higher.

T. Rex has been calculated to be 3 to 6 tons, and yes even higher, but higher than that like 11 ton bite force is extremely small chance of being true, in fact i say "heck no" to an 11 ton bite force. And you say 25??? hell no. I guess 4 or 5 tons.

But over all T. Rex does have the higher bite force but a couple of studies did mentioned 3 tons for T. Rex.


And give me a break dude, you dont think Spino can bump T. Rex down when it is practically twice its size? At that size difference, the Spino does have a good chance of bumping and dropping T. Rex.



Edited by genao87, Feb 6 2012, 07:23 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheROC
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Been busy, sorry for the late response.

Quote:
 

First, neither can bite the other's flanks.


Of course, quite obvious. Something I've plainly stated before in related threads. I am confused, it seems you were attempting to
contend a point, that was never actually made?

Quote:
 

Spinosaurus can bite tyrannosaurus' neck or head.
(note that their are some other areas that are not viable or practical options)


Tyrannosaurus can bite the neck, chest, and possibly head.


Spinosaurus can bite the neck, head, and along the spine.

T.Rex can only bite the neck if its lowered enough. Same with the head.
The chest however, produces another problem. As you can see in the comparison picture, the T.Rex's
jaw dips below the opposing chest of the Dal Sasso specimen. To target the chest it would have to akwardly angle
its skull upward. On top of this, Spino's chest does not protrude outward in an obvious manner, so a
simple vertical bite will not be getting its teeth around much flesh at all. Turning its head for a horizontal bite will
yield a more substantial 'mouthful', but unfortunately this will simply be awkward to attempt in the middle of a face to
face encounter and is not a naturally fast maneuver. And of course, it will leave its neck vulnerable in taking this posture.

In this situation we are left with two boulders crashing into each other, one much smaller than the other,
these boulders happen to have mouths, but won't be doing much damage to each other with them to each other.



Quote:
 
Spinosaurus knocking tyrannosaurus over? Please, don't. Tyrannosaurus is faster and has binocular vision.
Spinosaurus probably ran at 15 mph. It'd get bitten the crap out of.


Yes, knock it over. 'Faster'? I'm afraid its not faster in a way that's actually meaningful in a one on one fight. More on this in a bit.

Binocular vision? This smacks of going through a list of traits picking for advantages without stopping to consider their actual significance.

Firstly, its not really relevant to the current point that is being isolated here.

Secondly, at these sizes binocular vision vs panoramic
vision is not going to make a big difference. Binocular vision is more of a help for environments that are cluttered, whereas 'panoramic' vision
is more for environments that are more clear. (cluttered as in dense and 'leafy')

Read this:
http://www.azooptics.com/News.aspx?newsID=3010
"Changizi discovered that animals in non-cluttered environments — which he described as either "non-leafy surroundings, or surroundings where the cluttering objects are bigger in size than the separation between the animal's eyes" (think a tiny mouse trying to see through 6-inch wide leaves in the forest) — tended to have sideways-facing eyes."

If the mouse had binocular vision instead, that giant leaf would basically block all of its view. With panoramic vision though, he is able to see the giant leaf in front of it, AND a great deal to the side and a fair bit behind as well. Do you know what this means? For example, If we had a T.Rex vs a Carcharodontosaurus, the T.Rex
is so much larger than the seperation between Carcharodontosaurus' seperated field of vision, that the Carch won't HAVE a problem perceiving the T.Rex.
It would take a considerably small animal in front of it to fall within a blindspot along its snout.

rabbits also have sideways facing eyes;
Posted Image

Do you see a problem? If the animal is as big or bigger than the seperations between both its eyes, then, its not going to be a problem. the blindspot
in front of it, is a very tiny space. The overlap between two eyes isn't too great, but it does exist, and it is completed by the rest of the left and and
right eye ranges, so its NOT like its it has some blind spot between the two areas. Put another rabbit's head in front of that rabbit, and he'll see the whole
thing well enough with his left, right, and overlap images forming a good enough picture.

Please guys, in the future don't harp too much on this type of visual difference when the combatants in question are comparable enough in shape and
size to not make it an issue. Yeah sure, T.Rex's level of binocular vision being wider than Carch's level of binocular should be considered an advantage, but its not a big enough advantage to harp over at all. T.Rex is not going to be disappearing from a Carch's point of view. They would be practically the same sized animal.

Thirdly, you assumed for some reason that Spinosaurids don't have decent binocular vision of its own. Spinosaurus' eyes are set high on its skull much like T.Rex,
and they are plenty forward facing if you look at the skulls.

Compare the skull of say suchomimus to allosaurus from the front.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Suchomimus_skeleton.jpg/677px-Suchomimus_skeleton.jpg
vs.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Allosaurus_skull_front.jpg/170px-Allosaurus_skull_front.jpg

As you can see, Suchomimus' orbitals sort of fan out at an angle more, thus allowing its eyes to have wider overlapping (binocular) vision.
Whereas Allosaurus skull is more 'flat' and straight. Spinosaurus' skull at the rear fans out even wider than Suchomimus' does, as
seen here: http://img.webme.com/pic/s/spinosauridae/skeletonelias2.jpg
The point is, Spino will be able to see T.Rex just fine. This is not a relevant point to tout as an advantage.

Now, to get back to the idea of speed. Firstly, you are touting running speed. This is not a race. This has next to nothing to do with agility
whatsoever. T.Rex has decent running speed when thinking of absolute terms, but in relative terms it is very slow--e.g. it does not cover
its own body length very quickly. which is the very definition of lumbering. T.Rex is lumbering. Spinosaurus is too. Speed is completely
irrelevant, especially when the top speed only comes about after a great deal of acceleration time, and is only speaking linearly.
It logically will not be a factor with in a fight. At all.


Quote:
 

The fall alone would not be enough to cause serious harm. The theory that tyrannosaurus would kill itself if it fell only applies to running, and running 40 mph at that, although a trip while running at 25 mph is still very likely to be fatal.


I'm curious to know where you got the idea that this was the case? It seems to me you arbitrarily got to this conclusion.

No, this is false. T.Rex will sustain injuries even if it tripped while walking or from a standstill fall. You are not getting the scope of the mass we are dealing with here, and how quickly that escalates into massive newton output and g-forces upon even a small acceleration window.

Here:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/trex/default.htm
"Farlow and fellow researchers turned their attention to some theoretical constraints on galloping for a 6,000kg T. rex . Specifically, they were interested in the forces that would be exerted on the body of such an animal if it were to fall while moving at speeds of 10 metres per second or the higher speed of 20 metres per second.

The forces could be broken into two components, a vertical force and a horizontal force. The vertical force would be the same regardless of the speed at which the animal was travelling. Because T. rex had puny arms that would not effectively break the fall, the forces were calculated as direct drops of the mass of the torso and the head from their respective heights. The torso, falling 1.46 metres, would experience an impact force of approximately 260,000 newtons and a deceleration of around 6g while the head, falling 3.46 metres would impact with a force of 99,000 newtons and a deceleration of 14g. This should have been enough to do considerable damage to the skull and rupture vital internal organs.

Do the numbers not mean too much to you? Then think of it this way: the head of a T. rex is about the same size and make up as an adult pig. Imagine what would happen to this hapless piggy if you were to drop it from a height of 3.5 metres. Not a pretty site.

Things only get worse for T. rex when it starts moving and, the faster it moves, the worse it gets. The horizontal component of forces during an impact are more difficult to calculate and require such grizzly factors as the "skid distance" and a "friction coefficient". If the T. rex was running at 20 metres per second (72kmh) and skidded 3 metres on impact, the torso would experience a horizontal force of 300,000 newtons or 7g. The resulting net force of both the horizontal and vertical vectors would run out to 400,000 newtons or 9g for the torso and 110,000 newtons or 16g for the head. At 7g, a fighter pilot blacks out. At 16g his head would pop open."


Vertical force is going to be a constant, as its simply the height from which it falls, roughly the same whether its standing or running, as we see, the vertical force alone is going to produce ~260,000 N of force when it falls, and that's just to its torso alone. The total net force would be even greater across the whole animal. That's almost 60,000 lbs of force when it falls on its torso alone. No matter HOW large an animal, organs are always soft and weak. T.Rex would have severe organ damage alone just from falling in place. And its head is so large and heavy, that its skull is going to take immense damage as well. The fact that T.Rex's skull is so heavy and bulky makes it even more vulnerable to being damaged from a big fall. Bigger they are, the harder they fall afterall. Again, the pig analogue that the link gives, being dropped from 3.5 meters. Actually, its even more extreme than that, according to this T.Rex's head would've been over 1,100 lbs, that's more like an average cow than an average pig. Drop an organism weighing 1,000 lbs + from 3.5 meters up, and you are going to see immense damage. Immense. T.Rex would not have gotten out scott free from a fall. The heavier its estimates become, the worse a standing fall becomes. It is simply immutable physics. It gets even worse when running of course, its guaranteed fatal in those cases.

Hell, even elephants today can get grave injuries just from falling down. They can fall down 3 foot deep moats in enclosures and end up fracturing their ankles or worse. And there have been dozens of incidents such as this. So yes, absolutely, if T.Rex gets knocked down, it loses the fight. It's going to either break ribs, rupture organs, or both. These are significant injuries and its not going to live long after them obviously.

I would ask you in the future, to please actually take the time to understand all the possible facets involved in an argument before you make a presumptious self assured statement like 'please, don't.'

And finally...where did you get the 40 mph figure from? I'm curious. The most recent research I've read said 25 mph was the maximum possible,
and that 18 mph was a more likely top speed. Even the new finding regarding the tail muscles being larger than thought before, I don't recall any
new speed estimate attached to that study, Persons himself said it was hard to say what a top speed could be.


Quote:
 

While tyrannosaurus cannot turn around in a circle from the same point very quickly, it can simply sidestep by placing 1 foot to its side, then the other. Spinosaurus can as well but of course that would not be as quick.


I'm having trouble imagining what you are imagining here.

Do you not understand the mass we are dealing with? T.Rex takes several seconds simply to turn around in place, that's a simple task which requires little coordination, how is it possibly going to 'sidestep' when that is a far more complex, coordination required maneuver, and far riskier? The way you are imagining this 'sidestep' is likely far different than how it would be in reality for a T.Rex attempting it, in which case it would slow, tentative, shuffling shift of weight from one foot to the other. Do you realize how dangerous that is? T.Rex is a creature so large that it can't even jump. And it puts a ton of strain on its bones simply from standing alone. Not to mention, it is a creature with a precarious level of balance. Shifting weight on foot for even a moment of time to 'sidestep' is an extremely risky behavior and in all likelihood would happen with an even more slow, tentative movement than turning in place alone.

The T.Rex is lumbering, it does not cover its body length fast at all, it is not agile as it turns slow and cannot jump whatsoever, and even if it has a decent top speed that is relevant only in a race and has no practical application within a face to face contest that starts only a couple of body lengths away at best--especially considering it takes time to actually accelerate to that top speed, it will not be able to 'dodge' Spinosaurus nor will it be able to do anything like bite and 'dart out'. It is impossible. At this size scale its simply too much mobility and agility to ask for.

They are both slow, lumbering, unagile animals, Spinosaurus even moreso, however the T.Rex's advantage isn't great enough to avoid contact. Neither can avoid contact with the other. They will inevitably clash bodies while trying to bite each other while not doing a lot of damage from that alone because of lesser damage potential or simply because of an inability to get its mouth around anything substantial.

It will be like watching a turkey and rooster fight, after somehow retarding their agility and speed to the point where neither could even jump anymore. The larger animal has the advantage here. Mass is never unimportant.

Please take the time to better understand the implications and applications of all the factors being discussed here, I'm a bit perplexed by your lack of insight and awareness on certain points. Nothing that can't be improved however.
Edited by TheROC, Feb 11 2012, 01:40 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.