Here's a really cool article that makes a strong argument against evolution.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
You just done shot yerself in the foot with that one...

You just done shot yerself in the foot with that one...


I did, huh?:lmao:

Just because you never gave that article a second thought doesn't mean that it's invalid in any way. It pokes some very valid, gaping holes in your precious theory.

I'm glad I found it. It bears reposting!


As for the 85 million year old footprints. Some seem to be legit, and others are fake. The legit ones are still under scrutiny because excavators simply didn't fill out the right paperwork or some other crap. Not that it mattered, evolutionists would have done something to make them seem illegitimate anyways in order to protect their precious 'theory'.

There's also a fossilized human finger, but even I'm skeptical over that.

And? No scientist in his right mind would dare make the claim that 85 million year old human footprints have been discovered, yet you're A-OK with spouting both that some scientists have and that these claims are accepted as fact within the scientific community.


Why not? They're spouting that there are 85 million year old dinosaur bones with fresh marrow still in them.

How is one more crazy than the other?

Hey look everyone, Sparky's back http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?sduid=11629&p=42284655&highlight=newgeology#post42284655

http://www.newgeology.us/DogTail.jpg


I was wondering....

I did not see an "a" in the original statement.

Look, if I can show you a force that does NOT change the velocity, then that statement at best is sloppy.
You can't -- you can show 2+ forces that don't change velocity. Not singular. I believe DF said "that which changes velocity."

You can't -- you can show 2+ forces that don't change velocity. Not singular. I believe DF said "that which changes velocity."Take your weight. In most cases that force is not changing anyone's velocity. Not a force?

I am not focusing on or questioning how/why it is not changing your velocity. I am only mentioning that it does not.

Take your weight. In most cases that force is not changing anyone's velocity. Not a force?

I am not focusing on or questioning how/why it is not changing your velocity. I am only mentioning that it does not.
When you measure your weight, you're really measuring the normal force of the scale which is equal to (but in the opposite direction of) the force of gravity. That is, it's a two force system. If a hole opened up beneath your feet, you can bet your bottom dollar that your "weight" would cause you to accelerate downwards.

When you measure your weight, you're really measuring the normal force of the scale which is equal to (but in the opposite direction of) the force of gravity. That is, it's a two force system. If a hole opened up beneath your feet, you can bet your bottom dollar that your "weight" would cause you to accelerate downwards.Why you invoke "measuring" is beyond me. I simply said in most cases your weight is not changing your velocity. So, not a force?

FTR, this is this is the original statement to which I was responding:

"Force in physics is that which causes an object to change speed."



BTW: I disagree that when you measure your weight, you are actually measuring the counter weight force but that is another matter of discussion.

Why you invoke "measuring" is beyond me. I simply said in most cases your weight is not changing your velocity. So, not a force?

FTR, this is this is the original statement to which I was responding:

"Force in physics is that which causes an object to change speed."



BTW: I disagree that when you measure your weight, you are actually measuring the counter weight force but that is another matter of discussion.
Your weight is not changing your velocity because there exists another force (the normal force) that counteracts it. So it's once again a situation with multiple forces. When you're saying "weight is a force," I assume you're talking about the force of gravity. Clearly the force of gravity changes your velocity when another force isn't causing equilibrium. Try jumping in the air.

Again, when forces are isolated, an object changes velocity. Combinations of forces can cause no velocity change (equilibrium), but a force by itself does not.

And it doesn't matter if you disagree with me. When you measure your weight, your scale is displaying the amount of force that it is providing to counteract your weight. That's why your weight will change if you weigh yourself in an elevator or other accelerating body. If you were measuring the actual force of the earth pulling you (ie Fg = m*9.8), it would be constant unless your elevator changed planets.

Why not? They're spouting that there are 85 million year old dinosaur bones with fresh marrow still in them.

How is one more crazy than the other?
No they're not. Well, maybe in your mind, but not really. Most scientists are pretty confident that the soft tissue is pond scum. Please show me where it's been identified as bone marrow. I don't keep up to date with paleontology, so maybe there's some revelation I haven't heard about.

You can't -- you can show 2+ forces that don't change velocity. Not singular. I believe DF said "that which changes velocity."
Speed, direction or shape.

Why not? They're spouting that there are 85 million year old dinosaur bones with fresh marrow still in them.

How is one more crazy than the other?

You mean semi-intact marrow.

Can you please cite the law of physics or chemistry which says that organic material must break down under any condition after a specific period of time?

Didn't think so....

You mean semi-intact marrow.

Can you please cite the law of physics or chemistry which says that organic material must break down under any condition after a specific period of time?

Didn't think so....
It doesn't HAVE to but the probability of it not is extremely slim. Most likely what the soft tissue is is contamination from another period. There have been numerous fossils found where a dino was paired with a plant or animal that wouldn't exist for millions of years. How was that possible? Because the fossil was buried, then re-exposed (due to landslide, earthquake, erosion, etc) and another fossil formed alongside them.

Speed, direction or shape.
ah, yes. I mistyped. I already chided you enough for saying forces change speed :tongue:

It doesn't HAVE to but the probability of it not is extremely slim. Most likely what the soft tissue is is contamination from another period. There have been numerous fossils found where a dino was paired with a plant or animal that wouldn't exist for millions of years. How was that possible? Because the fossil was buried, then re-exposed (due to landslide, earthquake, erosion, etc) and another fossil formed alongside them.


Low probability x mega lotsa samples = virtual certainty. :P

The actually have found real dinosaur DNA encased in bone fossils.

Just like it survives intact when sealed in amber.

Low probability x mega lotsa samples = virtual certainty. :P

The actually have found real dinosaur DNA encased in bone fossils.

Just like it survives intact when sealed in amber.
They have? Can you post the link? Again, it's a story I must have missed, but I'd love to read.

Also, we don't have too many samples. I mean, we do have tons and tons of fossils. But it's a bizarrely small fraction of all the organisms that have lived over the past billion years.

Amber is a rare situation. It does an amazing job of sealing out oxygen and other contaminants which lead to biological breakdown. Of course, dinosaurs rarely got stuck in amber :) Fossilization is basically replacing organic molecules with minerals, which is something terrifically different.

They have? Can you post the link? Again, it's a story I must have missed, but I'd love to read.

Also, we don't have too many samples. I mean, we do have tons and tons of fossils. But it's a bizarrely small fraction of all the organisms that have lived over the past billion years.

Amber is a rare situation. It does an amazing job of sealing out oxygen and other contaminants which lead to biological breakdown. Of course, dinosaurs rarely got stuck in amber :) Fossilization is basically replacing organic molecules with minerals, which is something terrifically different.

Here is one reference. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html) I think I saw Schweitzer on 60 Minutes. (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=mary%20schweitzer%2060%20minutes&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fstories%2F2009%2F11%2F12%2F60minutes%2Fmain5629962.shtml&ei=xrytTqvjHorQiAKk2oCaCw&usg=AFQjCNGcHAAY9zuxqLJPtbMAcwT0bLTJgg)

Here is one reference. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html) I think I saw Schweitzer on 60 Minutes. (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=mary%20schweitzer%2060%20minutes&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fstories%2F2009%2F11%2F12%2F60minutes%2Fmain5629962.shtml&ei=xrytTqvjHorQiAKk2oCaCw&usg=AFQjCNGcHAAY9zuxqLJPtbMAcwT0bLTJgg)
That's protein (amino acid) sequence, not DNA (nucleotide) sequence. Still neat.

Your weight is not changing your velocity because there exists another force (the normal force) that counteracts it. So it's once again a situation with multiple forces. When you're saying "weight is a force," I assume you're talking about the force of gravity. Clearly the force of gravity changes your velocity when another force isn't causing equilibrium. Try jumping in the air.

I anticipated that and tried to preempt it by saying I am not focusing on WHY/HOW the velocity is not changed. (I fully understand and always did why it does not and have no problem with your explanation either). The fact remains that that force (i.e. the wright) is not causing the velocity to change. And I note that you do not dispute that specific claim either. You only explain WHY/HOW.

Again, when forces are isolated, an object changes velocity. Combinations of forces can cause no velocity change (equilibrium), but a force by itself does not.

I agree. But that is not what the original claim said. FTR:

"Force in physics is that which causes an object to change speed."

And it doesn't matter if you disagree with me. When you measure your weight, your scale is displaying the amount of force that it is providing to counteract your weight. That's why your weight will change if you weigh yourself in an elevator or other accelerating body. If you were measuring the actual force of the earth pulling you (ie Fg = m*9.8), it would be constant unless your elevator changed planets.

Consider a primitive balance consisting of a 2x4x8 and two jack stands. You support the beam with the two jack stands at the ends and then stand in the middle of the beam. You then measure the deflection in the middle. That displacement relates to your weight.

The fact that we are not measuring neither the weight nor the counterweight directly notwithstanding, the deflection is related to the weight and not the counterweight.

I anticipated that and tried to preempt it by saying I am not focusing on WHY/HOW the velocity is not changed. (I fully understand and always did why it does not and have no problem with your explanation either). The fact remains that that force (i.e. the wright) is not causing the velocity to change. And I note that you do not dispute that specific claim either. You only explain WHY/HOW.

I agree. But that is not what the original claim said. FTR:

"Force in physics is that which causes an object to change speed."

And force IS that which causes an object to change velocity. It is ONLY with the presence of ANOTHER force that velocity doesn't change. IOW, the second force "changes back" the change from the first force. Please provide a single example where you have a single force and an object isn't accelerating.

Consider a primitive balance consisting of a 2x4x8 and two jack stands. You support the beam with the two jack stands at the ends and then stand in the middle of the beam. You then measure the deflection in the middle. That displacement relates to your weight.


I never said that what you're measuring isn't RELATED to weight. Of course it's related! You're indirectly measuring your weight by taking advantage of an equilibrium situation. What I said is that you're not DIRECTLY MEASURING your weight. And you're not in this case, either. What you're measuring is the deflection of the beam -- which is generating a restoring force governed roughly by Hooke's law. You're not measuring anything on the object -- you're measuring something on the workbench. Hence, you're not measuring weight. You're measuring the restoring force which "cancels out" that weight, preventing it from accelerating (changing velocity). Fg = Fbench


The fact that we are not measuring neither the weight nor the counterweight directly notwithstanding, the deflection is related to the weight and not the counterweight.

That statement's ridiculous. The force of the weight and the "counterforce" as you call it are equal. If it weren't, the weight would be accelerating.

And force IS that which causes an object to change velocity. It is ONLY with the presence of ANOTHER force that velocity doesn't change. IOW, the second force "changes back" the change from the first force.

Ok, let me try this a bit differently:

Are you denying that while standing around, your weight (a force) is NOT changing your velocity?

After you answer that, you are then welcome to tell me (again) WHY it is not. :)

Ok, let me try this a bit differently:

Are you denying that while standing around, your weight (a force) is NOT changing your velocity?

After you answer that, you are then welcome to tell me (again) WHY it is not. :)
Dude, I already answered this multiple times. You're not changing velocity because of the presence of ANOTHER force (the normal force, provided by the ground you're standing on). When a force is by itself, it changes your velocity. The easiest way for you to have only the force of gravity on you is to jump -- and you'll notice your velocity changes quite noticeably.

They have? Can you post the link? Again, it's a story I must have missed, but I'd love to read.

Also, we don't have too many samples. I mean, we do have tons and tons of fossils. But it's a bizarrely small fraction of all the organisms that have lived over the past billion years.

Amber is a rare situation. It does an amazing job of sealing out oxygen and other contaminants which lead to biological breakdown. Of course, dinosaurs rarely got stuck in amber :) Fossilization is basically replacing organic molecules with minerals, which is something terrifically different.
Organic matter that is heat treated and sealed in a vacuum does not decay. People use this principle quite regularly in the processes of home canning and vacuum sealing. There are several explanations for how a piece of organic matter can be heat treated and then vacuum sealed naturally. There are also situations (admittedly rarer) where organic matter can be frozen or flash frozen and maintained at extremely low temperatures.

It is absolutely, without doubt possible for organic matter to be preserved for millions of years. It isn't at all likely that this would happen naturally, though. For one thing, the natural processes that facilitate this kind of preservation are either uncommon or are only common in geographic areas that are not conducive to life. Second, time has a tendency to break things. If a bit of organic matter is heated to kill bacteria then vacuum sealed in, say, amber, the hardened amber will only preserve the vacuum so long as it remains intact. Things have a tendency to be broken or weathered by nature over time. Frozen things, similarly, must be constantly buried under ever-increasing amounts of ice, or sublimation will cause the moisture to leave the matter, destroying cell structures. There are a whole lot of other environmental conditions that can damage or destroy organic matter, too.

That said, I'm done listening to anything Charles has to say unless and until he starts providing references for his outrageous claims and is willing to listen and respond to criticisms of his arguments and of his own references. If he is so confident in the veracity of what he is saying, he should be perfectly able to defend himself without petty outbursts of frustration, and if he is any bit familiar with the fields to which his claims are relevant (such as anthropology or evolutionary biology), he should know that his claims are patently distant from any and all forms of common acceptance, thereby requiring some special support. That he does not offer this support straightaway is one indication that he has no idea what he is really saying, and that he responds to criticisms with tantrums tells me only that he lacks the humility (and confidence) necessary to admit his mistake.

Dude, I already answered this multiple times. You're not changing velocity because of the presence of ANOTHER force (the normal force, provided by the ground you're standing on). When a force is by itself, it changes your velocity. The easiest way for you to have only the force of gravity on you is to jump -- and you'll notice your velocity changes quite noticeably.Dude,

- in most case your wright (a force) is not changing your speed, and
- "Force in physics is that which causes an object to change speed."

are in contradiction to each other.

Your explaining WHY your weight is not changing your velocity does not negate the fact your weight (a force) is not changing your velocity or that the above two are in contradiction.

I do not think I have anything new to say about this. Thanks for indulging me.

Dude,

- in most case your wright (a force) is not changing your speed, and
- "Force in physics is that which causes an object to change speed."

are in contradiction to each other.

Your explaining WHY your weight is not changing your velocity does not negate the fact your weight (a force) is not changing your velocity or that the above two are in contradiction.

I do not think I have anything new to say about this. Thanks for indulging me.
:facepalm:

Your weight isn't changing your velocity because it's not the only force acting on you.

Jump out of a plane and tell me that your weight doesn't change your velocity.

Likewise, if you didn't weigh anything (say, in orbit on the space shuttle) and the "floor" provided a normal force, you bounce off (change your velocity) rather than walking on it like you do on earth.

Alone, each force changes your velocity. On earth, when you're hanging around, you can think of it as gravity (weight) changing your velocity down and the floor changing it upwards. The two changes are equal but in opposite directions and cancel each other out resulting in no NET change in velocity. That doesn't contradict what DF said.

Ok, let me try this a bit differently:

Are you denying that while standing around, your weight (a force) is NOT changing your velocity?

After you answer that, you are then welcome to tell me (again) WHY it is not. :)
Actually, gravity is causing a change in your velocity. If it didn't, the rotation and orbit of the planet would cause you to go flying off into space at a moment's notice. Instead, gravity causes you to move toward the planet and the planet to move toward you. This is why you fall if you jump. The rate of downward acceleration you experience while falling (about 9.8 m/s^2) is the effect your mass has on your speed. If you could find a massive enough object, like the moon, and drop it straight into Earth's atmosphere, you'd find it accelerates much faster toward Earth than 9.8 m/s^2. In fact, if you found a massive enough object and got it close enough in proximity (like, say, the sun), Earth itself would accelerate toward it at a measurable rate. We just don't notice these kinds of acceleration because of the relative nature of motion.

The truth is, you are accelerating all the time--by a lot. While you are accelerating, however, most everything you can see is accelerating in the same direction at the same time because it is all being acted upon by the same forces. Because the forces acting upon us are in tandem with the forces acting upon everything around us, it appears to us that we are at a standstill. Of course, we know this not to be true.

Actually, gravity is causing a change in your velocity. If it didn't, the rotation and orbit of the planet would cause you to go flying off into space at a moment's notice. Instead, gravity causes you to move toward the planet and the planet to move toward you. This is why you fall if you jump. The rate of downward acceleration you experience while falling (about 9.8 m/s^2) is the effect your mass has on your speed. If you could find a massive enough object, like the moon, and drop it straight into Earth's atmosphere, you'd find it accelerates much faster toward Earth than 9.8 m/s^2. In fact, if you found a massive enough object and got it close enough in proximity (like, say, the sun), Earth itself would accelerate toward it at a measurable rate. We just don't notice these kinds of acceleration because of the relative nature of motion.

The truth is, you are accelerating all the time--by a lot. While you are accelerating, however, most everything you can see is accelerating in the same direction at the same time because it is all being acted upon by the same forces. Because the forces acting upon us are in tandem with the forces acting upon everything around us, it appears to us that we are at a standstill. Of course, we know this not to be true.Say you were standing on the surface of the sun. Is your weight there causing your velocity to change?

Say you were standing on the surface of the sun. Is your weight there causing your velocity to change?
Uh, yes, but the effect would be much smaller since you would be instantly vaporized and your "weight" would be distributed across bazillions of atoms. :P Also, "weight" isn't a relevant scientific concept. It's a nice little tool we use on Earth because the mass of all earthly things is similar relative to the mass of Earth (resulting in similar gravitational forces being exerted between those objects and Earth), and we call that gravitational force weight because the frame of reference is the same for almost every practical application. When you start talking about stuff outside of Earth's atmosphere, however, you have to really learn how gravity works to understand the bigger picture regarding gravitational force and acceleration. Your "weight" is just an easy way to talk about the gravitational force exchanged between your body and this planet. Because of this, it's not a useful tool for discussing what happens when you leave the planet. :)

Gravity functions in a way that is often counter-intuitive. The gravitational force exerted by one body on another is the same as the gravitational force exerted by the latter body on the former. Your body is a massive compilation, and it exerts, from its center of mass, a gravitational force on all other matter in the universe, including all the matter that makes up the Earth and the sun. The magnitude of this force is affected by the distance between the centers of mass of concerned physical bodies and by the mass of those bodies, and gravity is exerted in equal magnitude by each body upon the other. If you exert 750 newtons of force upon the Earth, the Earth exerts the same 750 newtons of force on you. Because your mass is much smaller than that of the Earth, however, the acceleration caused by this same amount of force is much greater for you than it is for the Earth (because greater forces are required to accelerate more massive objects). This means that, when you jump, you fall toward the planet, but the planet also accelerates toward you (at a very, very, very low rate). If you were able to stand on the surface of the sun without being burnt up and you jumped, the sun would also accelerate toward you, only it would do so even far slower than Earth does because the sun is much more massive than Earth.

Here's a good explanation of how gravitational force is thought to work. Take a look if you're still curious.

http://plus.maths.org/content/how-does-gravity-work

Say you were standing on the surface of the sun. Is your weight there causing your velocity to change?
From an outside frame of reference (like Mixels was talking about) yes, because the sun is moving through space. Gravity keeps you on the path of the sun, rather than in a straight line. Even without that perspective, yes you would change your velocity. Assuming you didn't vaporize, of course, you would be pulled from the surface of the sun towards the sun's center of gravity at the middle. Just like falling into a hole.

Uh, yes, but the effect would be much smaller since you would be instantly vaporized and your "weight" would be distributed across bazillions of atoms. :P

Gravity functions in a way that is often counter-intuitive. The gravitational force exerted by one body on another is the same as the gravitational force exerted by the latter body on the former. Your body is a massive compilation, and it exerts, from its center of mass, a gravitational force on all other matter in the universe, including all the matter that makes up the Earth and the sun. The magnitude of this force is affected by the distance between the centers of mass of concerned physical bodies and by the mass of those bodies, and gravity is exerted in equal magnitude by each body upon the other. If you exert 750 newtons of force upon the Earth, the Earth exerts the same 750 newtons of force on you. Because your mass is much smaller than that of the Earth, however, the acceleration caused by this same amount of force is much greater for you than it is for the Earth (because greater forces are required to accelerate more massive objects). This means that, when you jump, you fall toward the planet, but the planet also accelerates toward you (at a very, very, very low rate). If you were able to stand on the surface of the sun without being burnt up and you jumped, the sun would also accelerate toward you, only it would do so even far slower than Earth does because the sun is much more massive than Earth.

Here's a good explanation of how gravitational force is thought to work. Take a look if you're still curious.

http://plus.maths.org/content/how-does-gravity-workIt just amazes and (at the same time) saddens me that you and Bonk think I do not know how gravity works.

:(

Now, I could be wrong when I say the original statement was "sloppy". But to lecture me on why two forces acting in opposite directions do not change the velocity and if there is a hole in the ground we indeed would be accelerating is just ...... well ...... making me sad.

:(

From an outside frame of reference (like Mixels was talking about) yes, because the sun is moving through space. Gravity keeps you on the path of the sun, rather than in a straight line. Even without that perspective, yes you would change your velocity. Assuming you didn't vaporize, of course, you would be pulled from the surface of the sun towards the sun's center of gravity at the middle. Just like falling into a hole.Hmm ..... stipulating (since I am not sure either way) that Sun is moving through space, are you claiming that it (the Sun, that is) is accelerating/decelerating?

It just amazes and (at the same time) saddens me that you and Bonk think I do not know how gravity works.

:(

Now, I could be wrong when I say the original statement was "sloppy". But to lecture me on why two forces acting in opposite directions do not change the velocity and if there is a hole in the ground we indeed would be accelerating is just ...... well ...... making me sad.

:(
I don't know how much you know about gravity. It rarely comes up on TP, and I simply assumed that you asked because you did not know. Sorry, didn't mean to offend you.

In that case, though, we are saying the same thing differently. Gravity does indeed affect your velocity, and it does this at all times. Other forces affect your velocity on other trajectories, though. Appropriate forces totaling an equal but opposite force than that exerted by gravity can indeed have a net zero affect on your velocity, but each individual force is affecting your velocity. Similarly, forces other than gravity can act in opposition to gravity. I am talking about the effect of gravity on a person's velocity--this individually, apart from the cumulative effects of other forces. And I am speaking from a reference point independent of Earth. You, on the other hand, seem to be talking about the cumulative effects of forces. From a point of view limited to the reference point of an individual on Earth's surface, you are correct, but the way you have presented your argument is a gross simplification. Even when you are standing still on Earth's surface, you are still moving. Most people should know this, even if they can't see or feel it. You are flying through space stuck to the surface of a planet. In fact, that very planet is whipping you 'round in circles at rather expedient speeds. I believe your simplified statement was a source of miscommunication on this. If that is the case, please consider my above posts (and the instructional content of this one) to be elaborations provided for the benefit of others. And again, I apologize if I misunderstood your intent.

Hmm ..... stipulating (since I am not sure either way) that Sun is moving through space, are you claiming that it (the Sun, that is) is accelerating/decelerating?
yes, the sun is accelerating. Acceleration means VELOCITY change, not speed. Velocity includes direction. The sun is part of the milky way galaxy which slowly spirals around the (likely) black hole in the middle of it (as well as linearly flying through space on its own path). Without that black hole, the sun would move in a straight line.

What force draws the sun around the center of the milky way? Gravity!

It just amazes and (at the same time) saddens me that you and Bonk think I do not know how gravity works.

:(

Now, I could be wrong when I say the original statement was "sloppy". But to lecture me on why two forces acting in opposite directions do not change the velocity and if there is a hole in the ground we indeed would be accelerating is just ...... well ...... making me sad.

:(
I don't mean to offend. Entirely trying to clear up any misconceptions on why "force causes a change in velocity" is a true statement 100% of the time. As Mixels and I pointed out, you were focusing on NET forces (vector sum of all forces) and not just the affect of A force, which is the definition of which DF was giving.

I don't know how much you know about gravity. It rarely comes up on TP, and I simply assumed that you asked because you did not know. Sorry, didn't mean to offend you.

In that case, though, we are saying the same thing differently. Gravity does indeed affect your velocity, and it does this at all times. Other forces affect your velocity on other trajectories, though. Appropriate forces totaling an equal but opposite force than that exerted by gravity can indeed have a net zero affect on your velocity, but each individual force is affecting your velocity. Similarly, forces other than gravity can act in opposition to gravity. I am talking about the effect of gravity on a person's velocity--this individually, apart from the cumulative effects of other forces. And I am speaking from a reference point independent of Earth. You, on the other hand, seem to be talking about the cumulative effects of forces. From a point of view limited to the reference point of an individual on Earth's surface, you are correct, but the way you have presented your argument is a gross simplification. Even when you are standing still on Earth's surface, you are still moving. Most people should know this, even if they can't see or feel it. You are flying through space stuck to the surface of a planet. In fact, that very planet is whipping you 'round in circles at rather expedient speeds. I believe your simplified statement was a source of miscommunication on this. If that is the case, please consider my above posts (and the instructional content of this one) to be elaborations provided for the benefit of others. And again, I apologize if I misunderstood your intent.So I ask again ..... you are standing on the Sun's surface. How is your gravity affecting your velocity?

I don't mean to offend. Entirely trying to clear up any misconceptions on why "force causes a change in velocity" is a true statement 100% of the time. As Mixels and I pointed out, you were focusing on NET forces (vector sum of all forces) and not just the affect of A force, which is the definition of which DF was giving.Do you realize that you keep discussing physics when my beef is with style or semantics? (Hence reference to "sloppy.)

So I ask again ..... you are standing on the Sun's surface. How is your gravity affecting your velocity?
Since the sun is gaseous, it's pulling you into the center of the sun.

Change that to the surface of the earth and gravity is again pulling you towards the center of the earth. Without it, the normal force provided by the ground on you would launch you upwards AWAY from the center of the earth. The absence of this levitation is the change in velocity we're talking about.

Do you realize that you keep discussing physics when my beef is with style or semantics? (Hence reference to "sloppy.)
I guess so -- I'm saying that your semantics are off and using physics to explain why. Again, the error in his statement was that he used the word speed rather than velocity. Forces can cause acceleration without changing speed -- taking a turn in your car at a constant speed, for example. The statement isn't sloppy besides that because he specifically said force and not net force.

Since the sun is gaseous, it's pulling you into the center of the sun.

Change that to the surface of the earth and gravity is again pulling you towards the center of the earth. Without it, the normal force provided by the ground on you would launch you upwards AWAY from the center of the earth. Hmm. There would be a normal force provided by the ground in the absence of gravity?

Assume earth is simulated by a strong spherical magnet in a space lab. Take a small metal figurine portraying a person standing on this earth". Assume you have a switch that turn the magnet off/on. Switch is on. You say the gravity would change your velocity but for this normal force provided by the ground (surface of the magnet)? You say but for the gravity force, the figurine would be propelled up, errr, outwards? Ok, let's turn off the magnet and watch the propelling. ..... of course there would be none.

Hmm. There would be a normal force provided by the ground in the absence of gravity?

absolutely. Normal force is a force provided by any surface. It has nothing to do with gravity -- just surface contact. If gravity didn't exist, the normal force would only exist for a brief time as you bounce off the surface and then wouldn't exist any more. Like the space shuttle example I gave earlier.

Assume earth is simulated by a strong spherical magnet in a space lab. Take a small metal figurine portraying a person standing on this earth". Assume you have a switch that turn the magnet off/on. Switch is on. You say the gravity would change your velocity but for this normal force provided by the ground (surface of the magnet)? You say but for the gravity force, the figurine would be propelled up, errr, outwards? Ok, let's turn off the magnet and watch the propelling. ..... of course there would be none.

You are correct. If you were in equilibrium on the surface of the earth and then gravity stopped working, the normal force would be zero. The instant you moved in the slightest, however, you would push off the surface, normal force would exist, and your velocity would change as you're propelled outward.

Imagine you "turned off" your magnet and then removed the magnet carefully. The object would stay in the exact same location in space relative to your frame of reference. If you bumped it slightly with the magnet, it would accelerate while it was in contact and its velocity would change (this is the normal force).

yes, the sun is accelerating. Acceleration means VELOCITY change, not speed. Velocity includes direction. The sun is part of the milky way galaxy which slowly spirals around the (likely) black hole in the middle of it (as well as linearly flying through space on its own path). Without that black hole, the sun would move in a straight line.

What force draws the sun around the center of the milky way? Gravity!(You are still lecturing me on velocity/speed/direction???? I simply asked if Sun is accelerating./decelerating.)

Ok, so the sun is accelerating/decelerating/whatever. What is the ratio of that acceleration/deceleration to the Sun's gravitational acceleration on its surface?

Do we REALLY need to bring up the fact that the Sun is accelerating/decelerating when discussing why the weight of a person standing on the Sun's surface does not change their velocity?

absolutely. Normal force is a force provided by any surface. It has nothing to do with gravity -- just surface contact. If gravity didn't exist, the normal force would only exist for a brief time as you bounce off the surface and then wouldn't exist any more. Like the space shuttle example I gave earlier.
You REALLY think that if we could somehow switch off the earth's gravity that you would bounce off the surface of the earth? Due to the normal outward force?

Assume you are nailed to the earth. Earth's gravity is switched off. You say there would remain the same normal force as there was when there was gravity? What would be the magnitude of such normal force?

----

ETA: So you say if we switched off the gravity, you would be propelled outward (momentarily, at least). Assume that there are no other forces involved on you. So you would propel outward. Please tell us what would your velocity be in this otherwise forceless environment?

Shouldn't basic physics have it's own thread?

Take the physics debate to PM or another thread.

But if the physics debate again devolves into grandstanding and personal attacks, then people will get vacations.