[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Dinosaur weights

> Date:          Thu, 21 Aug 1997 19:05:22 -0400 (EDT)
> Reply-to:      mattf+@pitt.edu
> From:          Matt Fraser <mattf+@pitt.edu>
> To:            Dinogeorge@aol.com
> Cc:            redledger@cableinet.co.uk, dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject:       Re: Dinosaur weights

> On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:
> > In a message dated 97-08-21 18:07:29 EDT, redledger@cableinet.co.uk writes:
> > 
> > << It was also assumed that (and this is where my
> >  ?physics is not so good) the mass of the dinosaur was equal to water, I
> >  think.  Does water have mass? >>
> > 
> > Here I think you want density, rather than mass. The density of the 
> > dinosaur,
> > that is, it's mass divided by its volume, should be about the same as that 
> > of
> > water, since living tissue is mostly water by volume.
> You are right, of course, about how to define density, but I think that
> point at issue here is whether the dinosaurs were less dense than water,
> since it is being argued that there volume was, in part, composed of
> non-living gas poskets.
> What about birds?  Same density as water?
Man (??assuming most mammals as well) is usually less dense than 
water. How much depends on fat primarily, bone some, and all the rest 
not much at all (throwing out all the water-organs and muscle being 
almost as dense as water).  About 1 in 8 humans sink in a dead man's 
float.  I guess they are about as dense as water.  I think it might 
be a little more complicated than that though.  

Of course, the one in eight figure is off the top of my head.  I 
could be wrong as it's seems that more than 1 in 8 are dense 
when I reflect on personal experience with others.:))
(None on this list of course).