Father's theories

>>8228110
>I'll explain.
Stopped reading.

>>8228116
Well good. That was the end of the message. You shouldn't keep reading after it's done

I'll show him anything you post. He says that animals were bigger because the Earth's rotation was slower, and that lowered gravity and somehow allowed animals to grow very large. I cant find very much on centrifugal force affected gravity greatly. This also means that the rotation of the earth would have sped up to the 21 hours it was 600 mya and then slow down again, right? I know that when earth got its moon was one time that it's rotation changed and can't find another time it did.

File: images.png (4KB, 191x160px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 191x160px

>>8228120
>Earth's rotation was slower, and that lowered gravity

>>8228120
He also says that earth has gotten smaller over the years from gases escaping earth through the ozone in great amounts. I don't know very much about our atmosphere but I don't think enough gases escape to make the earth lighter. Doesn't the amount of space debris earth collects make it very slightly bigger?

I now realize that this may seem like a troll but my dad is very serious about his theories. He is known by my siblings to spew weird facts that no one has heard of, and sometimes it worries me. So basically he believes that slower rotation of the earth=lower gravity = larger animals. For the record Earth's rotation has only slowed down after life formed right?

He also says that we can't prove dark matter exists even though we can infer it through other measurements. he also says that life definitely exists throughout our solar system because we can infer some shit about carbon, do I watch my old man fir signs of Alzheimer's/sci/?

File: Gravity.jpg (127KB, 1024x773px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1024x773px

>>8228120
There was a higher oxygen count because animals (mostly) didn't kill plants. When herbivores eat plants, they eat leaves/grass but leave the plant itself mostly alive.
More oxygen, means bigger creatures. Although, we can check this. If we measure the density of Dinosaur bones and then measure how much muscle/fat they're likely to have. (Given they're likely to have muscle/fat ratios with the same proportion as similar creatures that are alive today, like emus or kiwis)
If the bones would be capable of supporting it's weight, than the dinosaur likely could have existed. If not, than it's likely that gravity was weaker back then
>>8228129
I don't think we can know that without measurements of Earth's mass from the past
>>8228137
>basically he believes that slower rotation of the earth=lower gravity
That kinda makes sense, most sci-fi gravity machines involve centrifugal forces
>pic related
>>8228141
>He also says that we can't prove dark matter exists even though we can infer it through other measurements
100% accurate. That's why it's called Dark matter
> he also says that life definitely exists throughout our solar system because we can infer some shit about carbon
We can infer there's carbon on other planets, but not that that carbon is organized in the form of something we could consider alive.

>>8228199
>He also says that we can't prove dark matter exists even though we can infer it through other measurements
100% accurate. That's why it's called Dark matter

I wouldn't say it's 100 % accurate. If our theories are constantly predicting it and if we constantly infer it's existence through indirect observations then it must probably exist. Besides there are experiments such as Large Underground Xenon experiment (LUX) that aim to detect it.

>>8228203
>can't prove dark matter exists
>Can't Prove
I'll concede it's likely to exist, but we can't prove that it does. At least not with what we know now

>>8228205
What is your definition of proof? If we take black holes as an example. Our maths have been predicting them for around 100 years now. All our indirect observations show they are there. LIGO experiment a few months ago detected the gravitational waves, from black holes. For all intents and purposes it's proven to exist even though we can't actually "see" them. Would you deny the existence of atoms because you can't "see" them?

Thank you very much /sci/. I work with birds so these topics aren't very clear to me.

>>8228224
Dinosaurs are cool.

>>8228120
>Earth's rotation was slower
>21 hours it was 600 mya
That is not slower rotation,
that is faster.

>>8228129
earth gains 100s of tons of weight every year because cosmic dust / small comets.

>>8228199
>That kinda makes sense, most sci-fi gravity machines involve centrifugal forces

no, it does not. if anything, less rotation would mean less gravity because we are on the surface of a sphere, not on the inside of a donut.

>>8228120
If the earth spinned slower, wouldn't it increase gravity as we would be flung off the surface less hard?

>>8228772
Spun? Idk man irregular verbs are shit for non native speakers.