In a message dated 2/16/99 10:41:43 PM Central Standard Time, email@example.com writes:
Actually I do beleive that dinosaurs are pretty much as they are portrayed to be. Big walking appetites that lived millions of years ago.
I still can't quiet understand the size differential between those early dino's...the early (giant) mammals...and today's critters. Why should giantism have been the norm (?) then as compared to now? There must have been a LOT of giants given the small amount of critters that manage to get fossilized...else we would have little or no record.
Is it true that strength increases as the square and weight as the cube? I beleive that is why Howard Hughe's flying boat....The Spruce Goose...was at the tippy tip of the envelope for large aircraft of it's day, until the materials used in AirCraft production had improved allowing such large aircraft as the C5 and the 747. Wasn't this strength of weight ratio one of the reasons that Zepplins lost their dominance?
That seems odd then that earlier critters had better materials than present critters. Of course that's unlikely. So what IS the reason? The site I refrenced suggested questions concerning a gravitationl difference then and now. Of course that's crazy.
I'm puzzled...and like a dog with a bone...I keep chewing.