dimreepr

Indeed. Panda’s can consume meat amongst other things and it’s just the predominance of bamboo that determines their diet; koalas are very particular on the type of leaves they choose and depend on eucalyptus as much for water as for food. In either case there’s no reason to assume they couldn't survive on another source.

Having researched this, I have to concede, there’s no reason to suspect sauropods would be so tied to one source of flora; the use of cattle as an example was not well thought out and just a result of hearsay.

They, presumably, evolved digestively with the changes; so a sudden change may not be so digestible. I have wonder, for instance, how cattle would manage without grass.

Then why quote me? Why not? I can’t think of any animal that without digestible food wouldn’t starve. In which case those that existed before modern flora may have problems with todays; and those that existed after would only struggle if they materialised in an arid region.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that discussion and can somebody please remove the +1 from the OP; I clicked it by accident and to be honest it offends me seeing that green 1.

Ripstop nylon/polyester is cheap and very durable and here's how to make a skirt.

Giant squid live too deep to be a threat to any whale other than the ones hunting them; even humpbacks have to learn/acclimatise to dive deep enough to catch them. The only predators most whales have are other whales. When have I suggested this would be the case? Sauropods would have nothing to fear from the fauna in this era, but I wonder if the flora, of today, would be suitable for their digestive system; if not they would quickly starve.

Really: what makes you think emotional intelligence is so much less important?

As I said it’s the only caveat, but not one that’s easily ignored. I’m sure that some historical creatures can compete with their modern counterparts in terms of predation but without knowing what it is they seek or how to catch them, it would naturally limit their ability in an alien world.

Good point. The only caveat is the animals you describe are of the same era.

They grew that big because of predation and there's no reason to think the predators stopped growing.

I think it’s fair to say, just as today, all ecological niches were filled; it’s also fair to say the introduction of most animals from, almost any previous era, would not end well for them, given that simple fact.

Really: why not? Pack hunters are more than capable of bringing down much larger prey; there’s no reason to suppose sauropods were spared, and if t-rex was such a hunter food would be so scarce as to doom them from the start in this era, although velociraptors would pose a very different threat. I still maintain the fiercest competition would be in the oceans, in terms of size and intelligence; what would a humpback family be worried about? Or, as I’ve said in post #3, a pod of killer whales?

I was talking about my own experience as an example of how low speeds can thrill; in terms of motogp bike racing, it depends on the corner, some are as low as 50mph or as high as 200. Although when you have no brakes and tricky steering 85mph seems fast enough, especially when a tree’s looming.

It’s the danger that’s exciting not just raw speed, taking a corner on a bike at 70 mph when the same corner at 65mph feels like the limit is far more exciting than 190mph on a straight.

You should try it first, don't forget there are no brakes.

I think it depends on what you consider ‘dominance’ and whether you include humans in the mix; for instance can we honestly say we have dominance over rats or cockroaches? I suspect the larger dinosaurs would have no predators other than humans, but I think we should look to the oceans to see where the hottest competition, possibly, would occur; a pod of killer whales, for instance, would be difficult to de-throne.

"the fact that we CAN go past the speed of light" Sorry: How? Edit/ cross posted

That particular argument was because the ‘babel fish’ was so improbable as to prove gods existence.

Indeed

It’s neither; it’s whatever you want it to be.

AAAAAAAAAARRGGGGHGHGGH!

I joined to share an amazing idea, born of ignorance, which turned out to be a standard crackpot idea; I stayed because I want to be less ignorant, and it’s fun to contribute now and then.

You could create a mould and inject it with the ‘foam in a can’, although I’m unsure if there’s a release agent that would be effective, in which case a lining of some sort maybe cling film.

So nearly 15,000 people were just faking? I suppose the 35,000 across Europe, in the same year (2003), also faked it? A giant European wide insurance scam is far more likely.