Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Analysis Shows Dinosaurs Not As Heavy As Previously Believed.

Posted by samzenpus on from the he's-not-heavy-he's-my-dinosaur dept.

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."

11 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Dino Booty by pd0x · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dinosaurs. Not heavy, just big boned.

  2. Elephant metric system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    pounds? for a minute there I thought we were talking sience...

    Let's make the African elephant unit a standard.

    1. Re:Elephant metric system by drkim · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sorry Kapiti, that should have read:
      "A huge Brachiosaur, once thought to weigh 12597.9 stone, is now believed to have weighed 3621.9 stone."

    2. Re:Elephant metric system by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

      Come on mate, how do you think American's translate to kilograms, and vice versa?

      Badly, if their use of apostrophes is anything to go by.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Elephant metric system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      The only US contributions I recognize, are those with the spelling errors.

      The comma you used does not belong there. Could you please let us know where you're from? I need to know which nationality introduces superfluous commas.

  3. overblown as usual by slashmydots · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is just like all other science. The most sensation, impressive sound stats that's backed by "real sounding" science wins. Impossibly heavy lizard vs reasonably, logically sized lizards. Let's go with the freaking lizo-tank. Mathematical error or magical substance we can't see or measure = entire 1 hour specials on dark matter. One of millions of things we have flying around up there vs careless aliens visiting...well that's alien UFOs of course. I think that might even have its own channel actually. This really needs to stop.

  4. Re:Dear discovery channel, by wisnoskij · · Score: 3, Funny

    Low accuracy and high precision. Now this is a scientific article that has some credibility.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  5. The brachiosaur you write about... by BlueTak · · Score: 3, Funny

    Was it a european or an african brachiosaur ? Do you think it could carry coconuts ?

  6. Re:I blame yo-yo dieting myself by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 4, Funny

    Finally scientific evidence comes out saying it is all because of their genetics. We should be ashamed of all the years we've been calling dinosaurs old and fat.

    --
    God spoke to me
  7. Re:What if they were filled with Hydrogen? by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wouldn't the buoyancy reduce their weight even more? Really, is there any reason they can't?

    And I presume they'd outgas the excess hydrogen as burps which their gizzards (full of flint and iron ore) would ignite?

  8. Re:Precision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    "This happens all the time in the popular press. Clearly you can't estimate the weight of a creature you've never seen to within 1 lb"

    I went to the museum and saw a big Tyrannosaurus skeleton and I asked the guide how old it was.
    He said: "75,000,013 years."
    I said: "Wow! Since when do they know the age up to the year?"
    He said: "Well, it was 75,000,000 years old when I got this job and that was 13 years ago."