| 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: |
| I'm skeptical about the weight of amphicoelias | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 31 2012, 09:02 AM (13,576 Views) | |
| Godzillasaurus | Jul 31 2012, 09:02 AM Post #1 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Though amphicoelias was very large, the fact that it was a diplodocid is making me skeptical about its weight. Diplodocids were very slender and lightly built for sauropod standards, being longer, though lighter than brachiosaurs and titanosaurs. Most of the candidates for the "world's largest dinosaur" are dinosaurs like Argentinosaurus, puertasaurus, and bruhathkaysaurus, all of which were titanosaurs. Amphicoelias is another candidate. However, it was a diplodocid. When you look at size comparisons with other sauropods, it looks like a human with a bunch of mice surrounding it. IT LOOKS FRICKIN HUGE! Another large diplodocid, supersaurus, weighed in at only 35-40 tons. Amphicoelias was estimated to have weighed a whopping 122 tons! That is assuming the proportions were correct. Something isn't right here. It doesn't make sense that the diplodocids, which were slender and lightly-built for sauropod standards, would have the world's heaviest dinosaur (other than bruhathkaysaurus) on their side. Amphicoelias makes titanosaurs look like wimps. That is, if it wasn't much smaller, and/or if it even existed. |
![]() |
|
| Replies: | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Godzillasaurus | Jul 31 2012, 11:16 PM Post #16 | |||||||||
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I still think 111 tons was too much. Though it may not have had the exact same proportions as diplodocus, its proportions were still very similar. In fact, I think a 20 ton diplodocus might be more logical. I used the proportions of an 85 foot, 20 tons diplodocus, and I still got a result lighter than 110 tons. Think about it. Seismosaurus's max length was probably 170 feet. However, its max weight was in between 30 and 50 tons. If you use that, amphicoelias would weigh in at only about 75 tons. That is very similar to the new weight from the link that I posted last night. |
|||||||||
![]() |
|
|||||||||
| Jinfengopteryx | Jul 31 2012, 11:48 PM Post #17 | |||||||||
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What result did you get? | |||||||||
![]() |
|
|||||||||
| Godzillasaurus | Aug 1 2012, 12:23 AM Post #18 | |||||||||
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I got about 75 tons. |
|||||||||
![]() |
|
|||||||||
| theropod | Aug 1 2012, 12:34 AM Post #19 | |||||||||
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
To use a 85ft, 20t diplodocus (too heavy btw, far too heavy, just go into a museum. these exagerated figures were what led people to believe in 100t diplodocus "seismosaurus halli" hallorum). Asuming that amphicoelias was 200ft long, we end up having an animal 2,35 times longer. Then add the other dimensions, you´ll get 2,35^3=12,97 what is 20t*12,97? it´s not less than 259,5t! How is this less than 110t? You haven´t understood the square cube law! the figure is an exageration that in any case is certainly impossible for a diplodocid that lenght, a diplodocus of 85ft (27m), would mass 10-12t, not more. Btw a "seismosaurus" (35m) with the proportions you gave would mass (1,29^3)*20=~43t, and using the old thought of it being 40m long, we get 65t (127t for a 50m long one). so it is understandable that when using the exagerated weight figures from WWD D. hallorum was once asumed to reach 100t. |
|||||||||
![]() |
|
|||||||||
| theropod | Aug 1 2012, 12:35 AM Post #20 | |||||||||
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
your mistake was that you didn´t take the square-cube-law into account. An animal doesn´t only grow for 50% if it get´s 50% longer without changing proportions, it grows for 50^3%, because it gets taller and wider as well. Understood now? |
|||||||||
![]() |
|
|||||||||
| Godzillasaurus | Aug 1 2012, 12:43 AM Post #21 | |||||||||
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I know nothing about the cube square law. |
|||||||||
![]() |
|
|||||||||
| Godzillasaurus | Aug 1 2012, 12:54 AM Post #22 | |||||||||
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sort of. But the proportions of diplodocids still prove that they were very light. Amphicoelias was only long because it had a really long neck and an incredibly long tail. Other sauropods, like titanosaurs, are made up of less neck and tail, thus making them heavier. I just used the weights of various diplodocids to calculate the true weight of amphicoelias. Remember, seismosaurus shouldn't really be called "earthshaking lizard", because it was only 30-50 tons, despite how long it was. Putting that in mind, amphicoelias, which is only about 30 feet longer, would weigh only a few tons more. The only diplodocids that had similar proportions to other sauropods were apatosaurines. However, amphicoelias was more closely related to diplodocines. If amphicoelias was an apatosaurine, it would weight about 100-120 tons. I know I didn't do the math right, but knowing that amphicoelias had similar proportions to diplodocids, 122 tons is over exaggerated. |
|||||||||
![]() |
|
|||||||||
| Jinfengopteryx | Aug 1 2012, 12:56 AM Post #23 | |||||||||
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What do you now think of 110t? | |||||||||
![]() |
|
|||||||||
| Godzillasaurus | Aug 1 2012, 01:02 AM Post #24 | |||||||||
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Though it is more reasonable, it still doesn't convince me. 110 tons still seems too heavy for even a 200 foot diplodocid. |
|||||||||
![]() |
|
|||||||||
| SpinoInWonderland | Aug 1 2012, 01:02 AM Post #25 | |||||||||
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
let me get this straight... First, Godzillaman, Seismosaurus is NOT a valid genus anymore, it's Diplodocus hallorum, which did NOT reach 170 feet, but rather 110 feet, or 33 meters. Stop calling D. hallorum Seismosaurus, or you may just as well refer to Apatosaurus exclesus as Brontosaurus. Second, Godzillaman is a huge Argentinosaurus fanboy, he just can't accept that Jurassic sauropods reached larger sizes. Third, If a 25-meter Diplodocus had a mass of 11.5 tonnes(a conservative estimate, 15 tonnes is more likely), then a 60-meter Amphicoelias would have a mass of about 158.976 tonnes. Do the math and you'll se- wait, none of you would understand so I'll do it instead: Al = Amphicoelias' length Dl = Diplodocus' length Amphicoelias' mass = Diplodocus' mass * ( ( Al / Dl )3 ) 11.5 * ( (60 / 25)3 ) 11.5 * ( (2.4)3 ) 11.5 * (13.824) = 158.976 tonnes Fourth, The link that Godzillaman posted was about a hypothetical 50-meter individual, and was actually meant to be a lower bound. And last but not the least, if Amphicoelias was simply a scaled-up Diplodocus, the square-cube law would make it unable to support itself, so it is more likely that Amphicoelias wasn'y just a scaled-up Diplodocus, but a scaled-up Diplodocus on steroids, which in that case, it would have an even greater mass. If Amphicoelias was an apatosaurine, it would be impossibly heavy, and would exceed 300+ tonnes. With all those in mind, Amphicoelias is larger than Godzillaman's beloved titanosaurs Seriously, Argentinosaurus is becoming the sauropod version of Tyrannosaurus, people are overrating it and downplaying anything that challenges or beats it in size and power. |
|||||||||
![]() |
|
|||||||||
| Godzillasaurus | Aug 1 2012, 01:05 AM Post #26 | |||||||||
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm not an Argentinosaurus fanboy! You, my friend, are a serious amphicoelias fanboy. You have no right to come here and start bashing me just because I'm skeptical. You can correct me, but please, don't come and start bashing me! |
|||||||||
![]() |
|
|||||||||
| theropod | Aug 1 2012, 01:13 AM Post #27 | |||||||||
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
you still haven´t completely understood. First of all, seismosaurus doesn´t exist any more, thus don´t worry about it´s name Then keep in mind that amphicoelias was about double the lenght of seismosaurus, and thus about 8 times as heavy (a rough figure of course). And now do the math again. Use a 27m, 10t diplodocus, and calculate its weight when scaled to 60m. I´ll do the same with a 28m, 50t apatosaurus (tha oklahoma specimen) for comparison.
These numbers don´t lie, if you think they can´t be true, something has to be terribly wrong with having the same proportions or with the reference values for diplodocus and apatosaurus. imo both can be out, as being more slender than the figure for diplodocus is hardly possible for a vertebrate, excluding snakes. So do you think that 10 to for a 27m diplodocus is too much? this is the only way amphicoelias can be significantly lighter than 110t (it can hardly be more pneumatised than diplodocus). |
|||||||||
![]() |
|
|||||||||
| Godzillasaurus | Aug 1 2012, 01:14 AM Post #28 | |||||||||
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Now I get it. I was a little bit confused. I guess it was about 110 tons. |
|||||||||
![]() |
|
|||||||||
| Godzillasaurus | Aug 1 2012, 01:18 AM Post #29 | |||||||||
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Did amphicoelias even exist? There was very little evidence, just like bruhathkaysaurus. | |||||||||
![]() |
|
|||||||||
| Jinfengopteryx | Aug 1 2012, 01:18 AM Post #30 | |||||||||
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@brolyeuphyfusion You don't need to call anybody a fanboy. Also 10t seems more likely for a Diplodocus((That's what I mostly read), it's Torso is VERY short. Also, I don't think that Jurassic Sauropods were the biggest, I still think Puertasaurus earned the title of the biggest Sauropod, 150t seem accurate for a Sauropod of that size. It might be 20m shorter than Amphicoelias, but half of Amphicoelias lengh goes on the extremely long tail. Please look at the size scale in the Diplodocus vs. Triceratops therad! |
|||||||||
![]() |
|
|||||||||
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | ||||||||||
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate & discussion of dinosaur related topics. · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Dinosauria light | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
9:36 AM Jul 11
|
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


)


![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





9:36 AM Jul 11