|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 13, 2014 20:41:56 GMT
He said in the region, not exactly. If you want to round it up, use 2.5 instead of 2.6. If there is hardly any difference between them, why not round it up to 2500kg? And this is a debate, not an arguement, and it does have a point. He said in the region of 2.6 tons or more. I would round it to 2.5 tons if he said ~2.6 tons. Then round it up to 3 tons. You know the concepts of rounding up, right?
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 13, 2014 20:45:20 GMT
He said in the region of 2.6 tons or more. I would round it to 2.5 tons if he said ~2.6 tons. Then round it up to 3 tons. You know the concepts of rounding up, right? When scaled up isometrically a 10 metre long immature Baryonyx would weigh around ~3 tons. So I wouldn't round up the 9.5 metre long 2.6+ ton immature Baryonyx specimen to 3 tons.
|
|
|
Post by thesporerex on Feb 13, 2014 20:50:06 GMT
Why not just say 2 tons if you are using a rough figure?
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 13, 2014 21:05:59 GMT
Then round it up to 3 tons. You know the concepts of rounding up, right? When scaled up isometrically a 10 metre long immature Baryonyx would weigh around ~3 tons. So I wouldn't round up the 9.5 metre long 2.6+ ton immature Baryonyx specimen to 3 tons. Then why not use 2.5 tons?
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 13, 2014 21:07:59 GMT
Why not just say 2 tons if you are using a rough figure? I'm not using rough estimates however.
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 13, 2014 21:09:22 GMT
Why not just say 2 tons if you are using a rough figure? I'm not using rough estimates however. The whole ~2.6 ton figure is quite rough.
|
|
|
Post by thesporerex on Feb 13, 2014 21:12:11 GMT
It rough mathematically but for me its accurate enough
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 13, 2014 21:13:03 GMT
When scaled up isometrically a 10 metre long immature Baryonyx would weigh around ~3 tons. So I wouldn't round up the 9.5 metre long 2.6+ ton immature Baryonyx specimen to 3 tons. Then why not use 2.5 tons? Because the immature Baryonyx specimen is 2.6+ tons, and I am using pretty exact estimates.
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 13, 2014 21:18:26 GMT
It rough mathematically but for me its accurate enough Which estimate are you talking about?
|
|
|
Post by thesporerex on Feb 13, 2014 21:19:18 GMT
the 2.6 ton estimate
|
|
|
Post by thesporerex on Feb 13, 2014 21:25:18 GMT
Then why not use 2.5 tons? Because the immature Baryonyx specimen is 2.6+ tons, and I am using pretty exact estimates. Keep in mind that its not an offical estimate. I would take an estimate by a paleontologist than carnivora
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 13, 2014 21:26:44 GMT
Because the immature Baryonyx specimen is 2.6+ tons, and I am using pretty exact estimates. Keep in mind that its not an offical estimate. I would take an estimate by a paleontologist than carnivora Technically no estimate for extinct animals is an official estimate, since it can change at any time.
|
|
|
Post by thesporerex on Feb 13, 2014 21:31:37 GMT
ye, but some are more accurate/offical than others
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 13, 2014 21:32:13 GMT
Then why not use 2.5 tons? Because the immature Baryonyx specimen is 2.6+ tons, and I am using pretty exact estimates. Just round it up, it's not that hard
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 13, 2014 21:33:49 GMT
Because the immature Baryonyx specimen is 2.6+ tons, and I am using pretty exact estimates. Just round it up, it's not that hard In isometric scaling (which I was using earlier in this thread) you have to use exact estimates -_-
|
|