Ask any parent...
When it comes to dinosaur-related knowledge, seven-year-olds beat Boffins hands-down.
Baffled bone boffins are puzzled by the discovery of a diminutive new vegetarian dino in Chile which, they say, was closely related to the infamous meat-eating Tyrannosaurus rex. Chilesaurus diegosuarezi. Image credit: University of Birmingham Chilesaurus diegosuarezi. Image credit: University of Birmingham Specimens of …
Have they worked out how T Rex could be a predator when falling over would kill him?
One thing I have never understood about this shape of dino is how it does not fall over. The centre (correct spelling, not American) of gravity is clearly in front of the hind legs. It either carried large counter weights on its tail, or it stood a lot more upright, or the hind leg were angled forward. In the posture above it would have fallen on it's face.
I always understood that if T. Rex ran it would have leant forward and raised it's tail, however I've also read that they may have largely been scavengers or opportunists rather than particularly active hunters. No reason why they wouldn't have been both though.
A more normal posture would likely to have been much more upright, possibly with tail down and legs a bit forward (similar to a kangaroo in some ways) allowing it to bend down and eat things at it's feet.
Having the centre of gravity forward of the hind legs while running only works while accelerating. Once at full velocity, and assuming such velocity is not supersonic, then wind resistance will not be sufficient. Dino would have buried its face in the ground. Those front leg (arms) are clearly insufficient to carry significant weight so a four legged stance i out of the question. Basically the tail is an insufficient counterweight to the rest of the body. Take a vertical line from the centre of the main load bearing part of the foot (most likely near the heel) and if it does not pass though the centre of gravity then splat!
If we have a palaeontologist reading this then I would dearly like to know.