New Analysis Shows Dinosaurs Not As Heavy As Previously Believed. 155
Cognitive Dissident writes "Discovery.com has an article on a new study using computer modeling to estimate the actual amount of flesh needed to cover the skeletons of dinosaurs. Based on a comparison with modern animals, it indicates that these animals could have weighed dramatically less than has been previously estimated. 'A huge Brachiosaur, once thought to weigh 176,370 pounds, is now believed to have weighed 50,706 pounds.' That's only about two-and-a-half times the weight of a modern African elephant. If other evidence can be reconciled with this, many estimates of the ecosystems dinosaurs lived in will also have to be revised."
Ah, good ol' instinct.... (Score:0, Insightful)
Back when I was a kid, I wondered if the weight attributed to dinosaurs was inflated. It's good to know that someone thought the same and followed through with it.
Re:Elephant metric system (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And geeks wonder why Joe Six-pack disbelieves.. (Score:3, Insightful)
What's so wrong with a changing belief anyway? Why this fixation on having an unchanging and un-adaptable view of the world?
I've changed a lot since I was born. My home town has too (though not as much some other places!). Very little in nature stays the same over a lifetime; rivers get different flow paths; lizards stop laying eggs and go placental. How I knew the world to work when I was seven is very different to how I knew the world to work at age 21 or how I know the world works at age 35. Things I knew to be true in the past turn out to be wrong or incomplete, and no doubt some of the things I hold to be absolute in my life now will turn out to be less than that in the future.
So why is it so bloody bad that theories and scientific understandings of the world change over time? Why do those choose to believe in system they profess hasn't changed in 2000 years (even though it clearly has changed and is still changing) get to be all "AHH! I CAUGHT YOU!" every time science discovers something that changes our view of the world? All modern science is built on the idea of falsifying the results of others, so off course some things are going to be found to be not true. All good scientists should be able to say "of course, I could be wrong - and this is how". AND THIS IS A GOOD THING.
I don't see many religious people willing to say that same thing... and I would guess that's why they feel it is so incompatible with their world view.
A view of the world that claims to be unchanging and immovable is clearly lying, and is clearly a faulty and unnatural way to be. It is for that reason that it should be expunged from the system.
Re:Not necessarily (Score:5, Insightful)
The huge difference in results from this technique and older estimates made me sceptical already.
If one method comes to say 80 tons, and another to say 70 tons, then I say sure, both sound reasonable, and not too far away. But if the other method comes to 23 tons, then I start to wonder what is wrong. One of the methods is wrong for sure, just the question is which one.
Interestingly the article you link to says that the weight of this particular dino was previously estimated at just over 23 tons. Almost exactly what the new method predicts. The 80 ton weight is suggested to be an old figure, and already long since relegated to the history books. The value in the new method is not as much in that the dinos get a lighter weight, it's that it confirms current weight estimates, and will allow for much faster and cheaper measurements on other dino skeletons.
So while your comment is technically correct, it's also slashdot-style suggestive into suggesting that the new technique is wrong, while in fact the new technique confirms the consensus weight of just over 23 tons for the animal. And that would also suggest that current ecosystem calculations are already done with the lighter weight - making the summary even more sensationalist.
Re:overblown as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate it when people deride dark matter without having the first clue about it. Neutrinos interact only through the weak force and gravity. Maybe another particle interacts only through gravity. No EM emissions would make it dark, no strong or weak interactions would make it essentially undetectable on earth. It would only show up on astronomical scales. Oh, and humans (who are very biased towards the types of particles we're made of and interact regularly with) would think the whole thing was voodoo.
And maybe not. There are numerous explanations for dark matter ranging from various forms of exotic matter to fundamental problems with existing theory. So far there are no clear winners. Making a "mathematical error vs. magical substance" dichotomy is so oversimplified it would be better for you to simply be quiet on this topic.
Re:Elephant metric system (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I blame yo-yo dieting myself (Score:4, Insightful)
"Discovery.com has an article on a new study"
The problem with the gullibility of the world are those willing to swallow that a "study" constitutes research bearing evidence.
Bad news, Jim, the study, is a quicky look at an information set for the purpose of determining if further research ( an actual search for evidence) is worth throwing money at. A strange animal , the study, frequently found near bored professors trying to busy a classroom has also been sited being unethically molested by corporations and governments for the purpose of manipulating the populace into beliefs advantageous to their purposes. This modern "study" device is actually descended from a useful tool that used to be defined by rules designed to make it scientifically useful; like polling a random 10% of your info pool, remaining an unbiased observer and including findings that may be contrary to the benefactors goal. Compare and contrast to todays "study" used to sell you everything from soap to political party, Polling targeted groups, interacting to manipulate outcomes and of course only keeping what could be construed as useful to a benefactors cause.
Caveat Geekor!