I support Tarbosaurus bataar in this fight, the reason for this is because Tarbosaurus bataar is larger in size though close to parity length. Torvosaurus tanneri is a far more gracile animal so it would be lighter in general. Not only that Tarbosaurus's bite force is stronger and has a more centred force of gravity due to how dimensionally larger due to its bulk it would be. Though it would be close with Torvosaurus having long powerful arms, wider gape and has a skull which has a mechanical advantage.
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Jun 13, 2014 19:50:44 GMT
Scaling the tyrannosaurid isometrically from Hartman's mass estimate of FMNH PR 2081 yields ~4.5-6t, however it could've been lower given the fact Hartman's estimate uses a density of nearly 1kg/l, quite high for my taste. 0.8 would probably be safer to assume, which would yield not much more than 7t with a volume of 9,200l, which scaling isometrically yields ~3.9-5.2t for Tarbosaurus bataar.
Hatzegopteryx: That's not even the beginning, the whole forum is disturbingly lethargic.
Jun 14, 2014 15:49:29 GMT
Spinosaurus Maroccanus: I'm quite surprised how no one has touched the Argentina 97ma thread
Jun 14, 2014 15:20:28 GMT
Hatzegopteryx: This forum needs some serious attention; I'll be at it for a moment, unless I get other tasks that do not allow me to do so.
Jun 6, 2014 19:13:55 GMT
Hatzegopteryx: It's a genetic fallacy. It's basically an argument that intends to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position.
May 26, 2014 20:47:51 GMT