|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What drove bird evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
redwolf Member (Idle past 5816 days) Posts: 185 From: alexandria va usa Joined: |
You'd have to do a volumetric study to get a realistic weight estimate for the seismosaur's neck but, visually, you can line up three to five 10,000 lb elephants alongside the guy's neck and figure 40K lbs and you're probably ballpark. Having the cog of the neck 15' from the shoulders would also be conservative ballpark. That would be 600,000 foot pounds of torque.
When I first noticed that, I tried to come up with something to compare it to to try to visualize it. I spoke with the people who service tanks and tank-tow vehicles at Aberdeen, i.e. how much torque is there on anything on a tank or tank-tow vehicle, and the answer was around 600 - 1000 foot pounds. I asked people at shipyards, how much torque was there on any sort of a nut which held a propeller on a large ship; couple thousand foot pounds... The only thing I could come up with with torque in the hundreds of thousands of foot pounds like that would be the combined total torque of all engines of a very large ship. For instance, max total horsepower for an Iowa class battleship, all four engines, is given as about 200,000 hp. If you use the normal formula for torque, i.e. (Horsepower * 5252) / RPM and assume maximum HP on one of those ngines is around 2500 rpm, which is a pure guess since I've not found figures for it, you'd be looking at 420160 foot pounds. That would be the maximum combined total torque of all four engines of an Iowa class battleship. That would be the torque needed to drive one of those ships through the water at a bit better than 30 knots. Now, the seismosaur looks big standing next to people, but not standing next to an Iowa class battleship. Having that kind of a torque load hanging off his shoulders 24/7 is not a ticket for success in life, or for dominating the world for tens of millions of years, as is claimed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1369 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
they're out to get your money.
There is a petroglyph in Natural Bridges National Monument that bears a startling resemblance to dinosaur, specifically a Brontosaurus, with a long tail and neck, small head and all." (Prehistoric Indians, Barnes and Pendleton, 1995, p.201) as i believe someone pointed out, there is no such dinosaur. the brontosaurus was an apatasaurus who's head somehow got changed with that of a camarasaurus. so, let's begin the lecture on dinosaur physiology, shall we?
There were two basic types of sauropods, i.e. brachiosaurids and the diplidocids. Simply from the bone structure, the former appear to have held their necks and heads upwards, the later outwards. it's not so much bone structure as balance. but either way, no dinosaur dragged its tail, as depicted in the petroglyph. tails, in the dinosaur world, were used as counter weights, to balance the animal. the depictions of dinosaurs with their tails on the ground are very dated, and the simple fact that image seems to show a dinosaur with its tail on the ground (below ground?) indicates that if a person made it, they hadn't seen a real sauropod at any point.
In our gravity, of course, neither would be possible. A sauropod holding his head upward would be impossible because of the blood pressure requirements to get blood to a brain 40' above its heart hearts. plural. they think brachiosaurus had about 8 of them, and all pretty large. this was an animal adapted to reaching the highest branches. and either way, the blood pressure study has been done, and it's not problem.
holding his neck outwards would be impossible because it would involve hundreds of thousands of foot pounds of torque. that's what tails are for. they counter balance. it's also one reason sauropods have small heads (the other reason may be found above, if you think about it). sauropods that hold their heads outward tend to have high dorsal vertbrae, where thick muscle (and even tendons and bone) attach to make a sauropod essentially a miniature golden gate bridge. but, i guess the millions of foot pounds of torque on that rule that out in today's gravity too. maybe gravity is different in california?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1369 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
i believe you already have a thread for this, but let's look at a better resolution picture of a REAL seismosaur skeleton.
how high would say those dorsal spins are? 4 feet? 5? here's an illustration of its internal organs, but you can see what the skeleton looks like better it doesn't need to hold up a lot of weight with its neck. just the mass of its head and neck. notice how the vertbrae just fore of the hips are turned? i don't know exactly where you're getting your figures, but the neck itself doesn't actually matter. the neck is counter balanced against the tail, so that the net force downward is over the hip. the way the bones are deforemed near the hip is evidence of that.
edited to fix page width - The Queen This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 07-18-2004 01:29 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
redwolf Member (Idle past 5816 days) Posts: 185 From: alexandria va usa Joined: |
quote: I'm not aware of any animal with more than one heart and I'm not aware of any scientific literature backing that sort of claim. Conversely, statements to the effect that there would be an insurmountable problem with sauropods holding their heads high are easy to find in real scientific literature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
redwolf Member (Idle past 5816 days) Posts: 185 From: alexandria va usa Joined: |
> the neck is counter balanced against the tail
That's right. The neck and the tail would both be lying flat on the ground in our present gravity...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1369 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I'm not aware of any animal with more than one heart and I'm not aware of any scientific literature backing that sort of claim. Conversely, statements to the effect that there would be an insurmountable problem with sauropods holding their heads high are easy to find in real scientific literature. you just haven't done your reading. here's a hint, get off the internet. i remember very distinctly when the issue of the cardiopulmonary system of a brachiosaurus was dealt with. i do believe they even had fossil evidence to support it. and no, you wouldn't be aware of any creatures today with more than one heart. not many creatures are specifically evolved to grow so high.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1369 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
> the neck is counter balanced against the tail That's right. The neck and the tail would both be lying flat on the ground in our present gravity... i think you don't understand gravity. suspension bridges work just fine, and sauropods are built like moving suspension bridges. they don't even have to hold up that much wieght.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That would be the maximum combined total torque of all four engines of an Iowa class battleship. Here's that crane again, handling torque loads hundreds of thousands of times greater than the sauropod: Can you show me, on that crane, where the thousands of Iowa-class battleship engines are located? Because I can't seem to find them, but your argument insists that they must be there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
redwolf Member (Idle past 5816 days) Posts: 185 From: alexandria va usa Joined: |
quote: I was trying to be polite the first time. If you're going to stick with this sort of ignorant bullshit, there's no real need for politeness. There is no animal with more than one heart and no reason to believe there ever would have been. That would require that dinosaurs had been a totally separate creation from all other animals, which NOBODY believes, evolutionists, creationists, or anybody else other possibly than the people who write the Marvel comic books. Moreover, a number of totally competent scientists have flatly stated that a sauropod dinosaur could not hold his head high due to the problems of the blood pressure which would be required to do so (in our present gravity). Christopher McGowan (DINOSAURS, SPITFIRES, & SEA DRAGONS) goes into this in detail (pages 101 - 120). He mentions the fact that a giraffe's blood pressure, at 200 - 300 mm Hg, far higher than that of any other animal, would probably rupture the vascular system of any other animal, and is maintained by thick arterial walls and by a very tight skin which apparently acts like a jet pilot's pressure suit. A giraffe's head might reach to 20'. How a sauropod might have gotten blood to its brain at 50' or 60' is the real question. Two articles which mention this problem appeared in the 12/91 issue of Natural History. In "Sauropods and Gravity", Harvey B. Lillywhite of Univ. Fla., Gainesville, notes:
quote: In the same issue of Natural History, Peter Dodson ("Lifestyles of the Huge and Famous"), mentions that:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
redwolf Member (Idle past 5816 days) Posts: 185 From: alexandria va usa Joined: |
>Here's that crane again...
One word: irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
One word: irrelevant.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
One word: irrelevant. You mean, your claim about sauropod torque loads and Iowa-class battleship engines? Yes, given that the sauropod neck handled torque loads in the exact same way the modern skycrane does, I would indeed say your claim was irrelevant. That was the purpose of my example. But it's good to see you agree. Now can we drop this ridiculous gravity fiction?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
redwolf Member (Idle past 5816 days) Posts: 185 From: alexandria va usa Joined: |
The crane is irrelevant because it is supported by cables anchored at a point substantially higher than the body of the crane itself, and no animal has a neck which is built like that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The crane is irrelevant because it is supported by cables anchored at a point substantially higher than the body of the crane itself, and no animal has a neck which is built like that. An assertion contradicted by a number of skeletons shown to you so far. The sauropod's arched back provides a more than high enough anchor point for the torque loads experienced by the neck, and the tail provides the same counterbalance that the skycrane uses. Boring, RW. If you can't do anything but repeat already-rebuked assertions, why do you even post here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
The sauropod's arched back provides a more than high enough anchor point for the torque loads experienced by the neck, and the tail provides the same counterbalance that the skycrane uses.
Somewhere I would think someone has done the numbers on this. Can you back this up with those numbers?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024