Moontanman

A planet around a dim red star, possibly in orbit of a gas giant around that star might be extraordinarily long lived, orbital resonances might keep the core molten long after the radioactive elements have decayed but while it might be 100,000,000,000 years it would not be forever...

There lots of different hypothesis, the main thing to remember is that bacteria were not the first life, bacteria are advanced life forms, the first life was far more simple that bacteria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Still, why would you say they couldn't find enough food, ever been to the tropics? Even where I live in the subtropics vegetation is quite lush. Water is close as the nearest river, just like other large animals they would live near a source of water, lush vegetation is generally near a source of water... As Sam suggested if they are gigantotherms they would eat and drink less than their size would suggest...

I agree, the environment wasn't as different during the time of the dinosaurs as many think. An animal that eats small animals would do so even if the small animals were different than they are used to. I am leaning toward disease being a significant factor as well... It's important to note that many if not all small theropods were covered in feathers, this would seem to indicate they could live in temperate environments as well. Makes the idea of them living in our time a bit more realistic.

I'm not sure what you mean, sources of water? All large animals would need that mammals included, I don't see plants being anymore lush then than now, is there reason to think so?

This could be an important development in the UFO phenomena. I can't read the entire article but it looks interesting.. These lights have been both filmed and photographed.

Sam, you do realize that dinosaurs were as removed from reptiles as are mammals? Both evolved from "reptiles" and many mammals are not exactly "hot Blooded" I do see your point, it is thought that dinosaurs may have been more diverse as far as body temps are concerned than we commonly think of as mammals. "Reptile" is no longer considered as an accurate descriptive term. Possibly if we want to get serious in this discussion we should be saying anapsids, diapsids and synapsids all of these groups evolved from para reptiles as well as many animals that simply didn't make the "cut" I am well aware that Jurassic park was a Hollywood fantasy, I am basing my assertions on paleontology not movies. Dinosaurs were as to birds as bats are to mammals both evolved from para "reptiles". Most of them had feathers, even sauropods are thought to have had fuzzy feathers similar to baby chickens by some paleontologists, probably not as adult but the young. The hollow neck bones and air sacs are indicative of bird like breathing and a high metabolism, young sauropods were probably more endothermic than gigantothermic and even today there are endothermic "reptiles" even fish, endothermy is not an off on thing and even insects have some limited endotherms. Theropods were almost certainly endotherms much like birds and also had the signature air sacs hollow bones and more efficient breathing than mammals. Sauropods evolved from far more bird like dinosaurs which survived the great dying because of both endothermy and other bird like features. Also dinosaurs lived inside the arctic and anarctic circles which also suggests they were endotherms. Still no such thing as a brontosaurus, apatosaurus is the correct name. Sam, I started out intending to defend mammals now i find myself on the other side, typical when you start out with a presupposition and look into it deeper.

So since i can at least provide some evidence of my stance and you can't you'll just take your ball and go home? I suggested you give me some idea of the side issues, I think I addressed the major parts, I am not asserting anything but facts and speculating from those facts, so far all you seem to want to do is talk about sauropods eating what ever...

No we must have cross posted. What side issues? Not entirely accurate, I am thinking about how well they would or would not compete with each other, I used the idea that dinosaurs were indeed superior to mammals. Dinosaurs took over dominance from early mammals due to low oxygen levels and the superiority of dinosaur breathing, one of the links I provided asserts this. There were large predatory animals way before dinosaurs, anapsids were common large animals that are now only survived by turtles, the early mammal like reptiles like dimetrodon and many other para reptiles could not compete with the dinosaurs who lived through the "great dying" of the Permian due to their superior breathing apparatus among other things. Dinosaurs didn't evolve until around 230 million years ago, they took over from the other para reptiles like the mammal like reptiles after the great dying. The first dinosaurs were small insignificant creatures but they inherited the world and dominated it for 150 million years... Hollow bones and air sacs also contributed to the gigantism of dinosaurs, crocodiles which survived the KT boundary and are also archosaurs do not share the breathing apparatus and hollow bones of dinosaurs and could not compete with the evolving mammals for land niches. The fixation on whether they could or could not eat modern vegetation has little bearing since modern vegetation had taken over the planet many millions of years before the dinosaurs became extinct so they most certainly could eat modern vegetation..

Eclectic would mean they could eat a wide variety of plants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauropoda Oxygen levels... http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/11/03/dinosaurs.oxygen.reut/

after the extinction of the dinosaurs other groups did start evolving into empty niches other than mammals, crocodilians became land predators for a "short" while, things like terror birds and some mammal groups that are either no longer with us or that have been relegated to minor roles in the ecology. Used to be lots of huge land turtles as well, not just on islands.

What dino meat tastes like is obvious... chicken... Yes there are mammals with specific diets and many that eat what ever they can get, my point is that larger animals tend to be a bit more eclectic in their eating habits but since we have no idea if this is true for dinosaurs one way or another speculation is moot. It's quite possible my OP was a bit vague but what I had in mind was more of a thought experiment in what would happen if a particular species of dinosaur was released into our world, minus humans, how would they fair in competition with modern mammals. I have read some assertions that dinosaurs were superior to mammals in their physiology, they are thought to have had a superior method of breathing much as birds do today, hollow bones like birds for less weight and a stronger weight to strength ratio, even sauropods are now thought by some to have had these adaptations and they contributed to the size they were able to obtain. Dinosaurs never competed with modern mammals but they did compete with and dominate the mammal like reptiles which had achieved dinosaur like size and domination of the environment before dinosaurs evolved and went on to dominate. Possibly a better example would be a continent of dinosaurs "suddenly" being connected to continent of modern mammals and the interactions of both types, This is not unprecedented with placental mammals displacing most of the marsupials when north and south america connected after a long separation. This is also relevant because terror birds went into north america when this happened and they were quite successful for a while. The life styles of modern mammals and dinosaurs were both similar and wildly different, as for the turtle comparison hiding eggs the size of golf balls is bit easier than eggs the size of footballs but it is a valid comparison but we would need to know a bit more about how things like sauropods hid or protected their eggs. I think it's obvious that a large adult sauropod or large adult theropod would be invincible to modern mammal predators but i think it would not be that simple. If dinosaurs were physiologically superior to modern mammals then over long time periods they should dominate at least some ecological niches.

I'm not sure how this is relevant, we have no idea if sauropods were specialists or not. We can see that a great many large herbivourus mammals eat highly varied diets, I would think it justified to assume dinosaurs were just as adaptable.

You are correct, I misread your post, sorry...

Quite the contrary, I grew up on a farm and have personally observed cows browsing on brush, drier regions cattle often have little to graze on but rough vegetation..

It is fun, and i think not a useless exercise, at the very least i think this phenomena gives a unique look into the human psyche...

I apologize, you are of course correct, many people seem to think that one fake means all are fake when in fact if all were fake but one...

Recently a hobby store here in town has started flying model airplanes at night with bright lights on them in odd colors or patterns, in low lying cloud conditions they are very strange looking and have been around for several years. If you don't get any more of a look than a light in the sky it's impossible to say what it could have been...

So I guess multiple independent eyewitnesses, multiple independent radar contact, interaction with commercial airliners and military jets over four days over our nations capital is just dismissed as incredulity... Keep in mind I am not claiming it must be aliens but some extraordinary objects have been seen and dismissing them out of hand is as silly as as couple hundred years ago saying that meteors were hoaxes or mistaken identity because everyone knew stones could not fall from the sky... There are some few really inexplicable sightings and not because of a lack of data, dismissing them by asserting silly shit like comets and slow meteors is intellectually vapid... It could be many things but simply ignoring this phenomena because it can't be explained easily seems dishonest to me... Claiming pelicanism is simply not right..

Cattle will eat vegetation other than grass..

I do understand that but those pic of fairies were quite crude and easily shown as false with modern equipment. There are UFO photos that have withstood the Test of time" ... The Trent UFO pics are an example of something extraordinary flying in sight of two people and being photographed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMinnville_UFO_photographs Phillip J. Klass one of the main debunkers is known for his single mined efforts to debunk UFOs at any cost, he suggested the explanation of some sightings as slow moving meteors or comets...

How would you assume that vegetation from one era would be indigestible in another? Sauropods lived right up till the end, changing vegetation didn't seem to have an effect...

This is simply not true Paraceratherium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraceratherium was quite large, as large as many dinosaurs. Dinosaurs also had high metabolisms, and animals like elephants do not have high metabolisms being at least partly gigantotherms. And since i did not suggest any such thing this is a strawman, please review the rules.. I see no reason why sauropods couldn't eat modern flora, they existed both before and after modern flora dominated the earth. If we are talking of sauropods it is not believed they protected their eggs, of course that could be wrong, but baby sauropods would be just as vulnerable as baby mammals but with out the adults to protect them. Other dinosaurs evidently did protect their eggs and young so they might not have been as vulnerable if you compare them to modern dinosaurs like ostriches. Of course if we include marine fauna in this there were mosasaurs and other marine reptiles that could have given marine mammals a run for their money as well...

I agree, that does pertain to modern films and photos, but there are both taken well before the time of photoshop that have considerable credibility to suggest that something extraordinary flew close to people of impeccable character. Then you have sightings by multiple witnesses, multiple radars, that interacted with aircraft both civilian and military at the same time, one of them was over Washington, DC two weekends in a row, and they were predicted to arrive days or weeks ahead of time due to reports that were getting closer and closer to DC. Many people go with the military who say it was false radar returns but that doesn't explain even a small part of the sightings... the Air force's reaction was not believable and didn't account for the majority of the sightings... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington,_D.C._UFO_incident