Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2022 20:52:02 GMT
A jack of all trades is a master of none. Then who is a master in your eyes? The jack of all trades. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2022 20:52:25 GMT
He doesn't need to be an expert, those other guys aren't either. Don't just accept that I'm not an expert you asshole... Oh my mistake I am so sorry, you will always be an expert dad. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2022 21:03:05 GMT
I do kind of want to see you go full beast mode, I get the impression you’ve been holding back/going easy on us? We're all happy friends here. Ah, indeed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2023 13:21:24 GMT
Wonder what some other members think of this match-up. I'd also like to apologise to Hardcastle . I was acting like a dickhead on this thread. Methane Musth Wyatt lincoln @hammerhead My opinion remains. I still favour Cretoxyrhina. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2023 13:55:20 GMT
 Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Methane on Feb 5, 2023 18:25:43 GMT
To be honest, that size comparison doesn’t really give me a lot of confidence for the ginsu. Sharks have superior bites to orcas, I still feel like the killer whale might be able to bully it with that size advantage. |
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Feb 6, 2023 13:00:45 GMT
A really large bull orca can be twice the weight of the biggest Ginsu shark; I'll take the killer whale in a heartbeat. He'd toy with the shark and take it out in my eyes, especially when looking at visual comparisons between the two.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2023 16:06:30 GMT
A really large bull orca can be twice the weight of the biggest Ginsu shark; I'll take the killer whale in a heartbeat. He'd toy with the shark and take it out in my eyes, especially when looking at visual comparisons between the two. Really? At what length is the orca twice the weight? I'm not denying it, just interested. |
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Feb 6, 2023 16:12:34 GMT
@ling
A 9m bull orca would weigh like 10.000kg
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2023 16:52:47 GMT
@ling A 9m bull orca would weigh like 10.000kg "The largest recorded male killer whale was 9.8 m (32 ft.) in length and weighed 10,000 kg (22,000 lbs.) The largest recorded female was 8.5 m (28 ft.) and weighed 7,500 kg (16,500 lbs.)." A 9m orca would still be over like 8-9 tons so I may favour it, but we have to remember that the largest cretoxyrhina specimen we KNOW OF is 8m long. It's extremely unlikely that we found an outlier, instead this is likely to be around the higher average size for the shark. I have no doubts that a ginsu shark could surpass 9m. We are not just dealing with an enlarged great white too, there have been multiple bite marks on the noses of tylosaurs, mosasaurs and pliosaurus made by cretoxyrhina. |
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Feb 6, 2023 17:35:55 GMT
@ling
No, 10.000kg would be more like the weight of a 900cm orca or around that region. Guate Gojira covered their length and weight in a lengthy post on Wildfact. The 980cm bull is an estimated figure based on photographic/visual evidence. In reality it would have been a few feet shorter, as the normal standard deviation between actual measurements and the method of estimating was about 61cm less on average. Also, A Russian scientist, Yuri Mikhalev, presented an equation in one of his books that should be helpful to gauge the weight of orcas at a specific length. His graph ends at 860cm with the curve indicating a weight of 9900kg. For his regression, he referred to a sample of almost 100 orcas taken by Soviet whalers and weighed on a dynamometer. Bigg and Wolman had a different equation where a 900cm specimen would end up at 8500kg. If you take the mean of them (all of those are different as the orca populations have different length/weight ratios) you'll always be at around the 10.000kg mark for a 9m bull orca.
Regarding the shark, I don't know what you are debating all those prehistoric animals vs modern animals then. You could always say "There may be bigger specimens who haven't been discovered", lol, we had that at TRex vs elephant too. "But the extinct animal could have produced larger individuals". In both cases it doesn't matter as Sue as well as the ginsu shark specimen estimated at 8m were fully matured and prime individuals. Both species have enough individuals discovered that scientists have made studies on growth patterns and can classify the stage of maturation. So of course, there will always be the chance that a naturally bigger individual plops up but that isn't of relevance; and in the case of the shark where 8m already refers to a really old and seasoned female you'd be hard pressed to argue that by nature there could perhaps be a female of 900cm. What matters is what both species bring on the table at the time of the discussion. When there is new material, you can still return to thread and update everything.
It seems to me that whenever someone questions your pick in a matchup involving a prehistoric animal, you'll go down the "there might have been larger individuals" road. You've already done it twice and I would recommend you to stop arguing like this. You should only do that if the largest individual of the species in question is officially referenced as a not fully matured specimen; then your argument would have a lot of weight as gradual maturation played a much bigger part in prehistoric fishes/reptiles/dinosaurs than in prehistoric mammals.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2023 17:55:52 GMT
@ling No, 10.000kg would be more like the weight of a 900cm orca or around that region. Guate Gojira covered their length and weight in a lengthy post on Wildfact. The 980cm bull is an estimated figure based on photographic/visual evidence. In reality it would have been a few feet shorter, as the normal standard deviation between actual measurements and the method of estimating was about 61cm less on average. Also, A Russian scientist, Yuri Mikhalev, presented an equation in one of his books that should be helpful to gauge the weight of orcas at a specific length. His graph ends at 860cm with the curve indicating a weight of 9900kg. For his regression, he referred to a sample of almost 100 orcas taken by Soviet whalers and weighed on a dynamometer. Bigg and Wolman had a different equation where a 900cm specimen would end up at 8500kg. If you take the mean of them (all of those are different as the orca populations have different length/weight ratios) you'll always be at around the 10.000kg mark for a 9m bull orca. Regarding the shark, I don't know what you are debating all those prehistoric animals vs modern animals then. You could always say "There may be bigger specimens who haven't been discovered", lol, we had that at TRex vs elephant too. "But the extinct animal could have produced larger individuals". In both cases it doesn't matter as Sue as well as the ginsu shark specimen estimated at 8m were fully matured and prime individuals. Both species have enough individuals discovered that scientists have made studies on growth patterns and can classify the stage of maturation. So of course, there will always be the chance that a naturally bigger individual plops up but that isn't of relevance; and in the case of the shark where 8m already refers to a really old and seasoned female you'd be hard pressed to argue that by nature there could perhaps be a female of 900cm. What matters is what both species bring on the table at the time of the discussion. When there is new material, you can still return to thread and update everything. It seems to me that whenever someone questions your pick in a matchup involving a prehistoric animal, you'll go down the "there might have been larger individuals" road. You've already done it twice and I would recommend you to stop arguing like this. You should only do that if the largest individual of the species in question is officially referenced as a not fully matured specimen; then your argument would have a lot of weight as gradual maturation played a much bigger part in prehistoric fishes/reptiles/dinosaurs than in prehistoric mammals. There's a reason why I always mention why extinct species may have larger specimens that haven't been discovered yet. When you posted on the Tyrannosaurus rex vs African bush elephant (x3) thread, you mentioned that the largest elephant to have been officially recorded was around 10 tons in weight, and then compared it to the largest Tyrannosaurus specimen. That's great, it really is, but you can't use the largest elephant EVER officially recorded and then use the largest Tyrannosaurus specimen THAT WE KNOW OF (which is only out of 32 individuals) and expect it to be its max size. Instead, you should've used a large elephant (not the largest), and compared that to Sue or Scotty, which would be more accurate. I guess I'll take your word for it on the first paragraph by the way. |
|
