Originally posted by Publius II
We see Kong break the dinosaur's jaw, then push the roof of its mouth down to the side. "Crushing" would imply that he caved the entire thing inwards or something.So no. Without rocks, crush skulls Kong does not.
And when he pushed down with his gorilla-might, it essentially crushed. If you want to play silly semantics, fine, he cracked/broke the snout and it collapsed.
Still a feat of extreme strength, as a T-Rex's skull must be extremely durable, as it had the strongest known bite in the animal kingdom.
Originally posted by RobtardI'm not arguing that it isn't a feat of "extreme" strength, but a Tyrannosaur's bite wasn't strong because its skull was particularly hard. The bite strength came more from the way the muscles attached to the skull, and how large the muscles themselves were.
And when he pushed down with his gorilla-might, it essentially crushed. If you want to play silly semantics, fine, he cracked/broke the snout and it collapsed.Still a feat of extreme strength, as a T-Rex's skull must be extremely durable, as it had the strongest known bite in the animal kingdom.
Originally posted by Publius II
...If you can find me a valid article specifically stating that a T-Rex's skull is notably harder than that of a comparable theropod, I'll entertain the thought. Until then, it makes no sense.
Biology, sir. An animal's skull has to sustain whichever pressures the bite-force subjects it to, ergo, an animal with a strong bite, generally has a strong skull, or else damage can occur. I think we all know T-Rex's didn't eat soft plant matter either.
I've already cited where the T-Rex is believed to have had the strongest bite of any known creature, it's thick skull was literally wrapped around with massive muscles. It's mouth is designed to bite off large chunks of dino-flesh and to cut through bone and bony-plates when necessary; sharp serrated teeth won't get you all the way without the driving-force behind them and the skull has to be strong enough to cope with the pressures.
Besides, if you really want a Kong strength feat, he picked up a huge boulder (compared to his size) with one arm and slammed it.
Originally posted by RobtardI know that it's strong, I said it wasn't particularly hard. In fact, the pneumatization that lent it most of its structural integrity actually made it more flexible than most. (yes, I looked up "pneumatization"😉
Biology, sir. An animal's skull has to sustain whichever pressures the bite-force subjects it to, ergo, an animal with a strong bite, generally has a strong skull, or else damage can occur. I think we all know T-Rex's didn't eat soft plant matter either.I've already cited where the T-Rex is believed to have had the strongest bite of any known creature, it's thick skull was literally wrapped around with massive muscles. It's mouth is designed to bite off large chunks of dino-flesh and to cut through bone and bony-plates when necessary; sharp serrated teeth won't get you all the way without the driving-force behind them and the skull has to be strong enough to cope with the pressures.
And a Tyrannosaurus wouldn't have tried to bite something sideways, so Kong snapping the roof of its mouth off to the side doesn't really reflect on how strong the skull is overall; it would have been built to withstand and absorb shock from a specific range of angles, and straight off to the side isn't in the range. If Kong had collapsed the jaw back into the skull from the front, you'd have an impressive argument here.
Porous or no, it still has to withstand the bite pressures the muscles subject it to, and don't give me any of the "it's bendy" shit. Flex accounts to overall strength of an object in regards to breaking it, as you have to first exert enough pressure to bring it to it's maximum flex capabilities and then break it.
I already said see 'boulder tossing with one arm' in regards to to his ape-powers, since you're hellbent on convincing yourself that crushing/breaking/snapping a T-Rex skull isn't anything particularly special.
Originally posted by RobtardYou're missing the point. A Rex's skull is designed to withstand the shock of the bite impact, which would be from the front. It is not designed to survive what Kong put it through, which was the application of pressure forcing its jaws apart and to the side. It is not designed to withstand both equally, so the argument is null.
Porous or no, it still has to withstand the bite pressures the muscles subject it to, and don't give me any of the "it's bendy" shit. Flex accounts to overall strength of an object in regards to breaking it, as you have to first exert enough pressure to bring it to it's maximum flex capabilities and then break it.
I already said see 'boulder tossing with one arm' in regards to to his ape-powers,I acknowledged this earlier when I said that most of Kong's impressive feats of strnegth involve throwing things.
since you're hellbent on convincing yourself that crushing/breaking/snapping a T-Rex skull isn't anything particularly special.No, you're just trying to argue a case that isn't there.
Originally posted by Robtard
Biology, sir. An animal's skull has to sustain whichever pressures the bite-force subjects it to, ergo, an animal with a strong bite, generally has a strong skull, or else damage can occur. I think we all know T-Rex's didn't eat soft plant matter either.
The skull of a Pitt Bull supports that theory.
Their teeth dont lend themselves to herbivore/ominvore type.
And every other herbivore was able to reach down or up to the vegitation comfortably. T-rex cant.
Not not have mentioned the fact that so many other Dino skeletons are found with large bits missing, with what remains featuring T-rex teeth impacts on the skeleton at the point where the dino goes missing.
IE forensic proof.
So yeah.. we kinda do know that, dont we......?
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Their teeth dont lend themselves to herbivore/ominvore type.
And every other herbivore was able to reach down or up to the vegitation comfortably. T-rex cant.Not not have mentioned the fact that so many other Dino skeletons are found with large bits missing, with what remains featuring T-rex teeth impacts on the skeleton at the point where the dino goes missing.
IE forensic proof.
So yeah.. we kinda do know that, dont we......?
Maybe you do, maybe you don't. But one thing is for certain, you are oblivious to sarcasm.