FE bendy light weird for people north and south

The sun in RE is seen by a rotating Earth as it sweeps across while tilting. And moving past the sun. in orbit.
And following the sun apparently, because the sun is hurtling along in its own orbit, around the Milky Way. While the Milky Way turns and apparently moves around the larger universe. Which is expanding.

I'm sorry if your pool little brain can't handle so many moving parts, but that's a you problem, not an RE problem.

It's your brain that can't handle moving parts.

You can't seem to understand this much:


In a RE model, a single constellation (much less all of them) wouldn't hold its position for a single year, much less centuries. For example, the Southern Cross. In a FE model, it simply orbits Earth, with no further explanation needed. However, in a RE model, where Earth is moving around, the sun is moving around, even if the galaxy is moving around, it all has to move around in sync in order that the sun, the Earth, and four stars? (or I forget does it have a center star?) all appear to be consistent. If even one of those stars gets too far away, we don't have a cross, we have a triangle. Likewise, if two stars look too close to each other, they appear to merge.

Not only that, the clean rotation around Earth can only happen if Earth is fixed.

In a RE model, a single constellation (much less all of them) wouldn't hold its position for a single year, much less centuries.

It would if the galaxy, along with everything in it, is rotating at pretty much the same rate.

Not only that, the clean rotation around Earth can only happen if Earth is fixed.

Which is easier, rotating a round earth or rotating the entire night sky around a stationary earth?  Why doesn't the rotation of the night sky cause the constellations to fly apart?  Doesn't centrifugal force apply to the stars and planets?

Rotating the sky on a stationary Earth.

Because that's a trick Occam's Razor.

---

Rotating a round Earth still involves moving the entire sky because the whole Milky Way has to move in order to keep pace with Earth.
And in fact, the stars have to move faster to keep pace with a moving object.

You can test this with a group of friends.
1. Stand still and have them run around you while a yellow ball on a tether swings in front and behind you on a tether. Have some of them move while holding something to stay in formation.
2. Draw a circle with tape. Run around while spinning, while the ball and kids stay put... which is not accurate to the real RE model (just a convenient dumbed-down version to fool kids). Also, you won't be able to stay on the line as a result of spinning and motion making you dizzy, invalidating the idea that an object can do this either.
3. Run around in a circle, while the kids follow you on a much larger circle, and the ball also moves. This is more accurate to the actual model of RE, but you should quickly notice that in order to keep pace with your moving, they have to run faster to keep up with you. We also haven't dealt with the fact that you not only have to move in that circle but also somehow in a straight line to follow the ball as it moves away.  And those kids have to follow this semi-line semi-circle while matching your speed, and keeping formation. It can't be done.

Rotating the sky on a stationary Earth.

Because that's a trick Occam's Razor.

How fast must the stars near the edge of the night sky move to keep pace with the stars near the pole star?  If the flat earth has a diameter of 25,000 miles, then the stars near the edge would need to move at over 3200 mph.  And you seem to think that the round earth spinning at 1000 mph is a problem.

Rotating a round Earth still involves moving the entire sky because the whole Milky Way has to move in order to keep pace with Earth.
And in fact, the stars have to move faster to keep pace with a moving object.

What if our sun is moving at the same rate as the rest of the galaxy?  You know, like a dot painted on a spinning top.

How fast must the stars near the edge of the night sky move to keep pace with the stars near the pole star? 

No, seriously. If you're gonna try to make me do math, I'm gonna insist you do this experiment.

1. Stand still and have them run around you while a yellow ball on a tether swings in front and behind you on a tether. Have some of them move while holding something to stay in formation.
2. Draw a circle with tape. Run around while spinning, while the ball and kids stay put... which is not accurate to the real RE model (just a convenient dumbed-down version to fool kids). Also, you won't be able to stay on the line as a result of spinning and motion making you dizzy, invalidating the idea that an object can do this either.
3. Run around in a circle, while the kids follow you on a much larger circle, and the ball also moves. This is more accurate to the actual model of RE, but you should quickly notice that in order to keep pace with your moving, they have to run faster to keep up with you. We also haven't dealt with the fact that you not only have to move in that circle but also somehow in a straight line to follow the ball as it moves away.  And those kids have to follow this semi-line semi-circle while matching your speed, and keeping formation. It can't be done.

For #1, you can even have the guy in the tree swinging the sun make it move in an arc. We'll assume out of range equals "behind you".
You're not allowed to turn around, any more than you can pop your eyes outta their sockets.
For #3, I am not responsible if your friends kill you.

You can test

Why you have failed to explain how the sun in your delusion endlessly orbits above the earth and why only the sun.

And you have failed at this before.

I stacked ice like this, this year.
It fully lasted until the ice melted, about five days later.

 into the space needle. This rotates fully in one hour, moving roughly 24x the rpm of Earth. I noticed it moving, see if you can.

Things stacked up on table settings just fine rotating 24 times faster than earth.


Lol..

Quote

How fast must the stars near the edge of the night sky move to keep pace with the stars near the pole star? 

No, seriously. If you're gonna try to make me do math, I'm gonna insist you do this experiment.

I already did the math for you.  It wasn’t very hard.  Maybe you should ask Eric to do the math for you.

Why you have failed to explain how the sun in your delusion endlessly orbits above the earth and why only the sun.

Because the sun is the center of the universe. Duh!

"But bulma! Surely there are other planets out there, and other stars..."
No, there are not.

The solar system model is that each system is a group of planets moving around a sun, which appeals to the gullible, who think in their minds of a family system (sun = father, moon = mother, planets = children), and then envision other families each of which has one or two planets that could support life with some work.

The thing is, those are not distant worlds in the night sky. They are simply lights in the sky. Do we attach significance to singular bulbs in a track lighting system?

"That is Hephaestus! And that's Venus! And this is Kepler 66-a2! Someday we will be able to touch these."

No, dumbass. They're just lights. The Lord above knows their names, whether Cassiel or Estheriel or Michael, just as he knows of the stars that have descended into the Abyss. But for us humans, the stars and planets are lights in the sky, whose only significance is timekeeping.

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky for the illumination of the day, to give directional light on Earth, and to watch over the day and the night, and to separate between the day and the night. And let them be for signs, for seasons, for days, and for years.  And let them be for lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on Earth." And it was so.  And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule over the day, and the lesser light to govern the night.  The sun was bright enough that it provided light and heat at any distance that it could be seen, but the moon was cooling and slowly brightened or dimmed over the course of a month.  And God made also the stars, to watch humanity to a lesser extent when night was at its darkest.  And God set them in the expanse of the sky to shine above all who lived on Earth, to separate the light from the darkness.  And God set a line between the sky and the land called it "horizon" and set the sun and moon to rise and to set upon the horizon, and for view to converge on the horizon.  And God set a great wheel in the sky, and set the stars on course with it, and named the center of this the "pole."

These celestial beings govern the days, nights, weeks, months, years, seasons, and so on.   

---

"But bulma, muhh space needle!"

Comparing RPM to actual speed in order to play min-max tricks does not endear yourself to me.  Nor does telling me about fixed speed going straight, versus fixed speed while turning. Newton's 1st law has limits.

The ball will land back in your hand if you throw it straight up while the car is moving, as both you and the ball share the same horizontal velocity. However, if the car makes a 90-degree turn, the ball will continue moving in the original direction due to inertia and may not land directly back in your hand.

Yes, turns actually do make a difference.

Oh, now they tell is that the "Space Needle itself does not move." I'm totally serious. That rotating panel that you can watch moving on these things? It's not like there is a motor or anything.

The Space Needle itself does not move; however, it is located on Earth, which is moving at an average speed of 107,000 kilometers per hour (66,500 mph) as it orbits the Sun. Additionally, the Earth rotates on its axis at about 1,600 kilometers per hour (1,000 mph) at the equator

Oh wait, yeah it does.
https://wisdomanswer.com/how-long-does-it-take-the-space-needle-to-rotate/

The Loupe is made of 37 tons of glass and powered by 12 motors, which can adjust in speed. The floor can make a full rotation in 20 minutes at its fastest, but when the Loupe opens to visitors, the floor will be moving at 45 minutes per full rotation.

Also Assist(AI)

The Space Needle's revolving glass floor, called the Loupe, moves at a speed that allows it to complete a full rotation in 45 minutes. This means it rotates at approximately 1.33 feet per minute.

"Doesn't move," yet moves 1.33 ft per minute, or 0.011363636 mph. "You can set up tables and they stand, amazing! This must prove that Earth is spinning and nobody realizes!"  Okay, let's assume RPM actually matters, and do a wind test.
At 0.011363636 mph, motion of wind can probably not be felt.
At 28 mph or so, motion of wind knocks over a table.
At 280 mph, motion knocks over a house.
At 1000 mph, motion probably flattens a city, and cuts people in half.
Clearly speed is more important than RPM, which is subject to total size.

So your bait and switch RPM trick doesn't add up, because the actual speed of Earth according to your theory would be enough to slice all occupants to ribbons. But let us say the speed in on part with an amusement park ride, namely a merry go round.

Assume radius = 5 ft (typical small playground merry-go-round).
15 RPM → linear speed = 2πr × RPM = 2π·5 ft ×15 = 150π ft/min = 471.24 ft/min = 5.35 mph.
20 RPM → 2π·5×20 = 200π ft/min = 628.32 ft/min = 7.13 mph.

So about 5.4–7.1 mph (for a 5 ft radius). If your merry‑go‑round has a different radius, linear speed (mph) = RPM × 2π × radius(ft) × 60 / 5280.

So asked if we could try the Space Needle thing on a typical merry go round (keep in mind, only 7.13 mph).

At 20 RPM a person at radius 5 ft experiences a centripetal (radial) acceleration a = (ω^2)r. Converting: 20 RPM = 20/60 = 0.3333 rps → ω = 2π·0.3333 = 2.094 rad/s. a = (2.094^2)·5 ≈ 22 m/s^2 ·(ft→m?) (calculation in ft/s^2: a ≈ 21.97 ft/s^2) which is about 0.68 g. That’s large — people feel several tenths of g sideways/outward.
Lateral forces on chairs/tables: a 50 lb table feels an outward horizontal force ≈ 34 lb (0.68·50), producing overturning moment about its edge; unsecured items slide/slide off.
Tipping risk: uneven loading or someone standing shifts the center of mass outward; the outward inertial force creates a moment that can tip a narrow platform unless it has a sufficiently wide base and low center of gravity.
Structural/load capacity: playground units are not designed for sustained centrifugal loads or rotating diners; bearings, hubs, and deck must be engineered for those loads and for dynamic unbalanced loads.
Human comfort/safety: >0.2–0.3 g of sustained lateral acceleration is noticeable and uncomfortable; 0.68 g will make standing/walking hazardous and increase slip/fall risk.
Comparison: The Space Needle’s rotating restaurant turns very slowly (about one revolution every ~47–60 minutes, far less than 1 RPM), producing negligible lateral forces; its system is engineered for smooth, balanced rotation and loads.

So then I asked if you could upscale the size to make it safe.

To stay stable at 20 RPM you must limit lateral acceleration (centrifugal a = ω^2 r) so overturning moments and sliding forces stay within safe limits. I'll assume a target maximum lateral acceleration of 0.05 g (comfortable for seated dining; 1 g = 32.174 ft/s^2), and show how radius scales — you can pick a different target.

Calculations and assumptions

    20 RPM = 20/60 = 0.3333 revolutions/sec → ω = 2π·0.3333 = 2.094 rad/s.
    a = ω^2 · r. Solve for r given a_target.
    Use a_target = 0.05 g = 0.05·32.174 = 1.61 ft/s^2.

Solve for radius:

    r = a_target / ω^2 = 1.61 / (2.094^2) = 1.61 / 4.386 ≈ 0.367 ft ≈ 4.4 in.

Interpretation

    To keep lateral acceleration ≤0.05 g at 20 RPM, the platform radius must be ≤0.37 ft (≈4.4 inches). That is essentially impossible for seated dining — it shows 20 RPM is far too fast.
    For more practical radii:
        r = 5 ft → a = 4.386·5 = 21.93 ft/s^2 = 0.68 g (very large).
        r = 30 ft → a ≈ 4.386·30 = 131.6 ft/s^2 = 4.09 g (extremely large).
    To get a_target = 0.01 g (very mild): r = 0.01·32.174 / 4.386 ≈ 0.073 ft ≈ 0.88 in.

Conclusion

At 20 RPM the only way to achieve comfortable/usable lateral acceleration is to make the usable radius essentially zero (a few inches), which is impractical. In short, you cannot build a reasonable-size rotating dining platform at 20 RPM that is stable and comfortable; the rotation rate must be reduced to a tiny fraction of 20 RPM (typically a full revolution every many minutes).

I ignored the conclusion, and I upscaled it to a restaurant the size of NYC. Because it was hilarious.

Brief answer: even a city‑sized radius at 20 RPM would produce enormous outward acceleration and forces — larger radius only increases the centrifugal force (a = ω^2 r), so it gets worse, not better. At 20 RPM the acceleration scales linearly with radius and is already 0.68 g at 5 ft; at city scales it's catastrophic.

Key numbers (20 RPM → ω = 2.094 rad/s; ω^2 = 4.386 s^-2):

    a = 4.386 · r (ft) in ft/s^2. Convert to g: a/g = (4.386·r)/32.174 ≈ 0.1364 · r (r in ft).
    Examples:
        r = 5 ft → a ≈ 21.9 ft/s^2 ≈ 0.68 g.
        r = 1,000 ft → a ≈ 4,386 ft/s^2 ≈ 136 g.
        r = 1 mile (5,280 ft) → a ≈ 23,157 ft/s^2 ≈ 720 g.
        r = 10 miles (52,800 ft) → a ≈ 231,570 ft/s^2 ≈ 7,200 g.

Implications:

    Human survivability: sustained lateral accelerations above ~3–5 g are dangerous; tens to hundreds of g are instantly lethal and would vaporize structures.
    Structural: bearings, materials, and inertial loads would be impossibly large; centripetal forces scale with mass·a and grow without bound as radius increases.
    Practical: the only way to make a large rotating dining area comfortable is to reduce RPM to near zero (fractions of a revolution per hour), not increase size.

Conclusion: A NYC-sized rotating platform at 20 RPM is physically impossible and lethal — acceleration and forces grow with radius, so bigger makes it far worse.

For reference, an NYC-sized rotating platform at 1000 mph is still only 0.265 RPM.

I finally lead up to Earth sized, and asked various questions, until asking about the current orbit speed of Earth.

No — it would be deadly.

Quick numbers:

    Earth radius r ≈ 3,959 mi. Tangential speed v = 67,600 mph = 67,600 × 1.46667 ≈ 99,183 ft/s.
    Angular speed ω = v / r (in consistent units): r = 3,959 mi = 20,907,120 ft → ω ≈ 99,183 / 20,907,120 ≈ 0.004744 s^-1.
    RPM = ω / (2π) × 60 ≈ 0.004744/(6.2832)×60 ≈ 0.0453 RPM (≈ one revolution every 22.1 minutes).
    Centrifugal acceleration a = ω^2·r ≈ (0.004744^2)·20,907,120 ≈ 470 ft/s^2 ≈ 14.6 g.

Implications:

    ~14.6 g outward acceleration would crush or incapacitate people, throw unsecured objects, and destroy normal structures.
    Atmospheric and structural stresses would be catastrophic.

Conclusion: Not safe for people or conventional structures.

(What about 67,100 mph? Surely that's safe)

No — still unsafe.

Quick calculation:

    r = 3,959 mi = 20,907,120 ft. v = 67,100 mph = 67,100 × 1.46667 = 98,470 ft/s.
    ω = v / r ≈ 98,470 / 20,907,120 ≈ 0.004711 s⁻ą.
    a = ω˛·r ≈ (0.004711˛)·20,907,120 ≈ 464 ft/s˛ ≈ 14.4 g.

At ~14.4 g sustained outward acceleration would incapacitate/kill people, throw unsecured objects, and destroy ordinary structures. Not safe.

Then I asked, what about a straight line? Which is what your Earth has while in orbit.

If the structure moves in a straight line at the same speeds (e.g., ~67,100–67,600 mph), the primary hazards are inertial (acceleration/deceleration), aerodynamic forces, and orbital/atmospheric effects — not centrifugal force from rotation — so safety depends on acceleration, atmosphere, and structural aerodynamics:

Key points

    Constant-velocity straight-line motion is harmless in itself: at constant speed there are no inertial (g) forces felt by passengers inside; people would feel normal 1 g from gravity (assuming a local gravity field).
    The dangers come from changing velocity (acceleration/deceleration). To reach 67,000+ mph without subjecting occupants to lethal g-forces requires extremely long, gradual acceleration distances or times.
        Example: to accelerate to 67,600 mph (≈99,200 ft/s) at 1 g (32.174 ft/s˛) takes t = v/a ≈ 3,082 s ≈ 51.4 minutes and distance s = 0.5 a t˛ ≈ 4.83×10^7 ft ≈ 9,140 miles. Higher accelerations shorten time but increase physiological risk.
    Atmospheric flight at those speeds inside Earth's atmosphere is effectively impossible for a city-sized object:
        Aerodynamic heating, shock waves, and massive drag would destroy conventional materials unless moving in vacuum or above the atmosphere.
        At sea level speeds ~67,000 mph (≈30 km/s) are orbital/escape velocities; you’d need orbital mechanics and vacuum or extreme thermal protection.
    Structural and aerodynamic loads scale with air density and speed squared; at those speeds dynamic pressure (q = 0.5 ρ v˛) is enormous and would pulverize buildings in atmosphere.
    Habitability/air: At orbital/space velocities you'd need sealed, pressurized, radiation-shielded environment; moving through atmosphere at those speeds would strip air and produce plasma around the vehicle.
    Coriolis/centrifugal: none from straight-line constant motion.

Bottom line

    If the Earth-sized restaurant were moving in a straight line at constant high speed in vacuum (no atmosphere) and occupants were already at that speed, sitting would be safe from inertial forces — provided the structure is engineered for thermal, radiation, and structural stresses and acceleration to that speed was done gradually.
    If movement occurs inside an atmosphere or involves significant acceleration/deceleration, it is not safe.

Earth has an atmosphere, so while in this "restaurant", we'd have fun here.

Extremely unsafe.

Why (brief):

    Dynamic pressure: q = 0.5·ρ·v^2. At v ≈ 67,000 mph (~30 km/s) and ρ ≈ 1.225 kg/m^3 (sea level), q ≈ 0.5·1.225·(30,000 m/s)^2 ≈ 5.5×10^8 N/m^2 (hundreds of MPa) — far beyond building or material strength; airloads would shatter structures instantly.
    Aerothermal heating: kinetic energy converts to heat; at tens of km/s the atmosphere becomes plasma around the object, producing temperatures that vaporize conventional materials and incinerate the exterior.
    Shock waves and pressure gradients: supersonic/superorbital flow creates lethal shock fronts, uncontainable pressure differentials, and massive sonic booms.
    Aerodynamic drag: enormous decelerative force would rapidly slow the structure unless continuous propulsion matched losses; deceleration would produce catastrophic g-forces on occupants and structure.
    Atmospheric loss and plasma sheath: high-speed travel through dense air strips and ionizes the atmosphere, causing communications blackout and loss of breathable air unless fully sealed and life‑support protected.
    Secondary effects: massive seismic/meteorologic effects on surrounding air, extreme noise, and debris generation.

Conclusion: An Earth-thickness atmosphere at those speeds would destroy or vaporize a city‑sized structure and kill occupants almost instantly. Safe operation would require vacuum or near-vacuum, extreme thermal protection, and engineering beyond practical limits.

Basically, the stated orbit speed is not safe for any atmosphere, or any change in speed. The rotation speed might be considered safe because it reduces RPM (tho I'm dubious), but the sheer size doesn't reduce force but rather increases it. Rotation is more dangerous that a straight line, but even a relatively straight line with the introduction of air, creates a thermal extinction problem.  That is, not that it extincts heat, but that it's thermal, and it makes humans extinct.

They are simply lights in the sky. Do we attach significance to singular bulbs in a track lighting system?

Astrologers from various cultures have for thousands of years.

As for the rest of it, what does 20 RPM have to do with anything?

No, dumbass. They're just lights.

What kind of light.  Like a light bulb?  Or something reflecting something.  Still objects of mass emitting or reflecting photons which are what our eyes are tuned to “see”  lol.

This is just a light?



It’s a comet and they are tracked as they move about the solar system among the planets. So what keeps the light moving about and relative to the planets? 

"But bulma, muhh space needle!"

You mean the earth has an atmosphere that moves relatively with it like the atmosphere in the space needle. lol.

Asked you a question you never answered.  RE, you walk 100 yards from the North Pole as the earth turns and then you stand still.  As you stand still, how fast are you moving relative to the earth.  How fast is the earth moving 100 yards from the North Pole in the RE relative to what.

Comparing RPM to actual speed

One revolution of the space needle every 40 minutes is a speed where it completes 36 revolutions in 24 hours where the earth completes one revolution in 24 hours.  The space needle is literally revolving 36 times faster than the earth.  lol. 

Conclusion: An Earth-thickness atmosphere at those speeds would destroy or vaporize a city‑sized structure and kill occupants almost instantly.

And yet the atmosphere in A Concorde jet flying at a cruising speed of over 1200 mph was quite comfortable.  You agree the “atmosphere” for and along with the passenger was moving at over 1200 mph.  And was “thick” like at sea level.  lol.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 18, 2025, 10:27:52 PM

Have you ever heard

That flat earthers have to run and hide behind changing the subject.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on August 01, 2025, 07:25:51 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 20, 2025, 04:04:21 AM

Cherry picking data would be only accepting stuff you like.

Which has been explained to you.

Photo from 1976 taken by Adrian Meredith

Quote

Concorde: A Photographic Tribute: A Photographic...
by Adrian Meredith

Notice in the picture of the Concorde where the earth is below the jet.  That is significant in terms of a fish eye lens.  The video explains this.

For the Concorde not to be distorted by a fish eye lens, the jet would have to be perfectly in the middle horizontal.  It’s not.  And the horizon under the jet at bottom of the frame would have the horizon distorted up.




Which is why the fisheye lens in you presented videos are BS.



So.  Yes.  There is curvature of the earth.

Quote from: markjo on August 16, 2025, 09:39:51 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 16, 2025, 05:25:36 AM

But since you asked, in any non-fake RE picture, horizon is always at eye level. Find eye level, and that is where horizon should be without the obstruction.

Okay, where is eye level in this picture?

1200 mph at low atmosphere (planes typically ride at 30,000 ft because it's generally a smoother ride) is a different kettle of fish than 1200 mph, coasting only 500 ft above sea level. The air is more dense (breathable) the closer you are to the ground.

Also, you are comparing apples and oranges.

1,200 mph
67,100 mph

Do you see that the speed difference is over 50x that? To give a sense of perspective, riding on a giant turtle going at 1 mph, and riding on a motorcycle at 50 mph. Can you feel the difference?

But sure, we have AI to crunch numbers for us.

They say 1200 mph is safe, provided the structure is sturdy. However, only 6,000 mph...

6000 mph (≈5,217 kn ≈9,656 km/h) is far beyond conventional atmospheric flight speeds and moves into regimes with fundamentally different physics and engineering challenges. It could be safe only in very specific vehicle types and flight profiles; for typical aircraft it would be catastrophic.

Major challenges:

    Aerodynamic heating: surface temperatures rise to many hundreds or thousands of °C, requiring advanced thermal protection (ablative or high‑temperature ceramics/metal alloys) and active cooling.
    Aerodynamic forces: extreme dynamic pressure and peak heating during acceleration; shock‑layer chemistry (air dissociation, ionization) changes fluid behavior and heating.
    Materials & structures: need materials that retain strength at very high temperature and resist oxidation; thermal expansion and gradients produce huge stresses.
    Propulsion: conventional turbofans/turbojets cannot operate; requirements are scramjets, ramjets (for high supersonic) or rocket propulsion. Scramjets are experimental and have narrow operating envelopes.
    Control and stability: shock interactions, unsteady aerodynamics, and high thermal loads make control surfaces and actuators difficult; plasma/ionization can affect communications and sensors.
    Reentry-like environment: at those speeds in atmosphere you approach conditions similar to atmospheric reentry (ablative heating, plasma sheaths).
    Flight operations & safety: limited flight corridors, complex flight dynamics, extreme emergency constraints (rapid loss scenarios), and currently very limited testing/certification frameworks.

Practical examples: vehicles that have reached comparable speeds were rockets and reentry vehicles (e.g., ballistic missiles, spacecraft during reentry) and experimental vehicles (HTV‑2, X‑43A) — not conventional aircraft. These are one‑off testbeds with largely unproven operational safety for routine transport.
Conclusion: 6,000 mph cannot be achieved safely by normal aircraft; it is only feasible for specialized hypersonic vehicles (scramjet‑powered or rocket‑launched) with advanced thermal protection, propulsion, materials, and mission profiles — and even then safety is limited, experimental, and operationally complex.

But hell, let's toss safety aside, and ask about speeding along at Earth's orbital speed according to RE. I stopped asking about planes (none of them would be up to the challenge, as they'd break apart), and asked about Superman flying at Earth's orbital speed just as a thought experiment.

Suppose Superman tried to fly at Earth's orbital speed. What effects would he encounter?
Earth's orbital speed around the Sun is about 30 km/s (≈67,000 mph). If Superman tried to fly through Earth's atmosphere at that speed relative to the air, he would encounter extreme physical effects. Key consequences:

    Aerodynamic heating: kinetic energy converts to heat in the shock layer in front of him. At ~30 km/s peak stagnation temperatures would be tens of thousands of kelvins, enough to ionize air and create a plasma sheath; anything not actively cooled or ablating would vaporize almost instantly.

    Shock waves and blast: a very strong bow shock would form. The shock heats and compresses air, producing an intense, expanding shock front and powerful sonic/overpressure waves (like a massive supersonic boom) that would destroy structures and cause lethal ground-level blast effects over large areas.

    Ionization and radiation: the plasma would emit intense ultraviolet, X‑ray, and visible radiation; ionization could create radio blackout and produce energetic particles and secondary radiation hazards.

    Aerodynamic forces and dynamic pressure: dynamic pressure q = 0.5ρv^2 grows with v^2. At 30 km/s even at high altitude (low ρ) q would be enormous, producing crushing aerodynamic loads on his body and any nearby objects. Without superhuman structural integrity he would be torn apart by shear and pressure gradients.

    Ablation and mass loss: surface material (hair, clothing, skin) would ablate; vaporized material would trail behind as a luminous plasma wake. Sputtering and chemical reactions with dissociated air would erode material rapidly.

    Atmospheric chemistry and shock heating effects: dissociation of O2/N2 and formation of NOx, ozone depletion locally, and incandescent airglow would occur; chemical energy release could add to heating and produce toxic gases.

    Electromagnetic and electrical effects: moving through ionized air can generate strong electric currents, magnetic fields and lightning-like discharges; these could damage electronics and produce EMP-like effects.

    Meteor-like visible phenomena: he would behave like a large meteor — a bright fireball, possible fragmentation, and a hot luminous trail that could persist and produce sonic booms and falling debris.

    Momentum exchange & wake effects: at that speed he would impart enormous momentum to the surrounding air, creating a high‑energy wake and potentially launching shock-driven winds and projectiles that would demolish nearby terrain and structures.

    Energy requirement & heating of environment: kinetic energy at 30 km/s is enormous (E = 1/2 m v^2). For a 100 kg body it's ~4.5×10^10 J — equivalent to many tons of TNT; interacting with air would deposit huge energy into the atmosphere and ground, causing fires, cratering, and long‑range destruction.

    Relativistic and orbital considerations: 30 km/s is nonrelativistic (no special relativistic effects significant), but it's comparable to orbital speeds; sustaining that speed near Earth without following orbital mechanics would require continuous thrust and would interact with gravity and atmosphere in complex ways.

Bottom line: flying through Earth's atmosphere at orbital speed would make Superman behave like a large meteor — intense heating, ionization, plasma formation, massive shockwaves, and catastrophic environmental and structural destruction; survival would require extraordinary protection well beyond thermal shielding, structural strength, and control of enormous aerodynamic forces.

Conclusion: Earth itself, much less the Man of Steel, shouldn't be able to hold up to Earth's supposed speed. Moreover, his passing (even if he was tough enough (the ablation part sounds scary) would leave a shockwave that creates massive devastation. But you're like "Oh I flew in a plane at 1,200 mph. No big deal!"

Conclusion: Earth itself, much less the Man of Steel, shouldn't be able to hold up to Earth's supposed speed.

Then it's a good thing that the earth's orbit around the sun is in a vacuum, not a dense atmosphere.

Seriously, do you have any idea of how to come up with an analogy that is even remotely relevant?

Also, you are comparing apples and oranges.

1,200 mph
67,100 mph

You’re babbling again. 

You made a big deal about 1,000 mph..

 A room spins at high speed, meant to emulate the 1000+ mph (16 miles per minute) spin of the Earth.

Read and address what is posted..

And yet the atmosphere in A Concorde jet flying at a cruising speed of over 1200 mph was quite comfortable.  You agree the “atmosphere” for and along with the passenger was moving at over 1200 mph.  And was “thick” like at sea level.  lol.

No, dumbass. They're just lights.

What kind of light.  Like a light bulb?  Or something reflecting something.  Still objects of mass emitting or reflecting photons which are what our eyes are tuned to “see”  lol.

This is just a light?



It’s a comet and they are tracked as they move about the solar system among the planets. So what keeps the light moving about and relative to the planets? 

"But bulma, muhh space needle!"

You mean the earth has an atmosphere that moves relatively with it like the atmosphere in the space needle. lol.

Asked you a question you never answered.  RE, you walk 100 yards from the North Pole as the earth turns and then you stand still.  As you stand still, how fast are you moving relative to the earth.  How fast is the earth moving 100 yards from the North Pole in the RE relative to what.

Comparing RPM to actual speed

One revolution of the space needle every 40 minutes is a speed where it completes 36 revolutions in 24 hours where the earth completes one revolution in 24 hours.  The space needle is literally revolving 36 times faster than the earth.  lol.

You can feel G-force. But this is basically motion strain. Whiplash. On roller coaster rides, you can be utterly certain of how "gravity" behaves.

The earth isn’t accelerating or decelerating.

Holly cow Bulba.  I thought you posted you understand RE. But you butcher every aspect to make false arguments.  The earth has an atmosphere that moves relative to it like the atmosphere in a passenger jet moves with the passenger jet where the air handling system creates different currents in the passenger compartment.

The earth’s atmosphere weights around 5.5 quadrillion tons (5.15 x 10^18 kg).  It moves relative with the earth and is held in place by gravity.  Gravity, what gives objects of mass weight and causes the molecules of earth’s atmosphere to much up at the surface where they want to equal distance otherwise.  Outside earth’s atmosphere, where the earth’s atmosphere decreases in “thickness” with altitude, is space where the space around the earth and its atmosphere has negligible mass and friction. 

The sun and earth are like two jets in formation.  They are essentially moving the same speed relative to each other. 


Or a person moving with a line controlled model airplane.



Or a person moving around with a yo-yo.

A single object cannot have two different speeds.

Lmao 🤣

Bulma.  You never walked around with a yo-yo while doing tricks? 

Solar systems to the MilkyWay galaxy are like people standing on a carousel. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 18, 2026, 03:41:03 PM

Conclusion: Earth itself, much less the Man of Steel, shouldn't be able to hold up to Earth's supposed speed.

Then it's a good thing that the earth's orbit around the sun is in a vacuum, not a dense atmosphere.

Seriously, do you have any idea of how to come up with an analogy that is even remotely relevant?

Correctlon. Earth is a moving object, surrounded by an atmosphere. Just because your theoretical Earth is moving in theoretical vacuum of  space, it would create friction because it has atmosphere. If Earth moves as you say, you will die.

Correctlon. Earth is a moving object, surrounded by an atmosphere.

Not your false correction.

Earth.

Read and address what is posted..

And yet the atmosphere in A Concorde jet flying at a cruising speed of over 1200 mph was quite comfortable.  You agree the “atmosphere” for and along with the passenger was moving at over 1200 mph. 

The earth has an atmosphere that moves relative to it like the atmosphere in a passenger jet moves with the passenger jet where the air handling system creates different currents in the passenger compartment.

The earth’s atmosphere weights around 5.5 quadrillion tons (5.15 x 10^18 kg).  It moves relative with the earth and is held in place by gravity.  Gravity, what gives objects of mass weight and causes the molecules of earth’s atmosphere to much up at the surface where they want to equal distance otherwise.  Outside earth’s atmosphere, where the earth’s atmosphere decreases in “thickness” with altitude, is space where the space around the earth and its atmosphere has negligible mass and friction.

Quote from: markjo on May 18, 2026, 04:25:29 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 18, 2026, 03:41:03 PM

Conclusion: Earth itself, much less the Man of Steel, shouldn't be able to hold up to Earth's supposed speed.

Then it's a good thing that the earth's orbit around the sun is in a vacuum, not a dense atmosphere.

Seriously, do you have any idea of how to come up with an analogy that is even remotely relevant?

Correctlon. Earth is a moving object, surrounded by an atmosphere. Just because your theoretical Earth is moving in theoretical vacuum of  space, it would create friction because it has atmosphere. If Earth moves as you say, you will die.

*sigh* The earth is not moving through the atmosphere, the atmosphere is moving with the earth.

That makes perfect sense... oh wait, no it doesn't.

The atmosphere being attached to Earth, is literally on fire. You die.

It doesn't matter whether you move with or through the atmosphere. The Earth, being an object in motion with atmosphere, creates friction.

You
die.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 18, 2026, 08:59:03 PM

Correctlon. Earth is a moving object, surrounded by an atmosphere.

And yet the atmosphere in A Concorde jet flying at a cruising speed of over 1200 mph was quite comfortable.  You agree the “atmosphere” for and along with the passenger was moving at over 1200 mph. 

The earth has an atmosphere that moves relative to it like the atmosphere in a passenger jet moves with the passenger jet where the air handling system creates different currents in the passenger compartment.

The earth’s atmosphere weights around 5.5 quadrillion tons (5.15 x 10^18 kg).  It moves relative with the earth and is held in place by gravity.  Gravity, what gives objects of mass weight and causes the molecules of earth’s atmosphere to much up at the surface where they want to equal distance otherwise.  Outside earth’s atmosphere, where the earth’s atmosphere decreases in “thickness” with altitude, is space where the space around the earth and its atmosphere has negligible mass and friction.

Quadrillion tons sounds like a number a kiddo made up. Why not sextillion or septillion? That's code for, "I don't have freaking clue  so I'll throw a big number at you, and hope you don't mind." Yeah I do mind actually. How did you manage to get Earth on a scale?

Earth weighs about 13,170,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 pounds (or 5,974,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms). Since Earth is too big to be placed on a scale, scientists use mathematics and the laws of gravity to figure...

So, you guessed. You extrapolated a number based on the assumption that gravity is a thing and your mathematics is right.

You don't know Earth's weight, nor size, nor how thick it is, nor how far from the sun.

"My plane trip is a luxury plane that is built sturdy enough to withstand high speeds (what is it those woke ppl say? Oh yes, check your privilege) is perfectly fine." Sure, but it we overclock the engines here, maybe 5x, we are suddenly in the realm of not fine at all. And at around 50x that, you are talking about shockwaves and the wings literally tearing off and melting.

Quadrillion tons sounds like a number a kiddo made up..

The earth has lots of atmosphere with lots of primarily CO2, N2, and O2 molecules held in place, given weight, causing the molecules to bunch at earth’s surface overcoming their tendency to equal distance by gravity. 


Weight of a SCUBA Tank full of Air vs Empty Tank of air



Where things of mass, meteorites, for the example, that don’t have the velocity to zoom by or stay in orbit are pulled to earth.

So you have an atmosphere held in place by gravity that is surrounded by space made up with negligible mass, where if things like meteorites are close and slow enough are pulled to earth.

And yet the atmosphere in A Concorde jet flying at a cruising speed of over 1200 mph was quite comfortable.  You agree the “atmosphere” for and along with the passenger was moving at over 1200 mph.

The earth has an atmosphere that moves relative to it like the atmosphere in a passenger jet moves with the passenger jet where the air handling system creates different currents in the passenger compartment.


Bulma.  Why are you arguments created by butchering what RE really is. 

It doesn't matter whether you move with or through the atmosphere. The Earth, being an object in motion with atmosphere, creates friction.

You’re driving 60mph in a car.  Are you going to get brush burns from the friction you create with the car?

60 mph is not that fast.

Comfortable speed, right?

Now multiply that by five. At 300 mph...

300 mph (≈480 km/h) is far beyond the design envelope of virtually all road cars. At that speed the car would face multiple simultaneous, catastrophic failure modes:

Aerodynamics and stability

    Extremely large lift and pitching moments likely overwhelm downforce: the car can become airborne or uncontrollable; small aerodynamic imbalances produce huge moments.
    Strong transonic-like shock and highly turbulent flow around protrusions (mirrors, antennae, seam gaps) cause violent buffet and unpredictable yaw/pitch/roll.

Aerodynamic loads on body and attachments

    Surface pressure and suction on panels, spoilers, and mirrors multiply; unreinforced panels, fasteners, and trims will tear off or detach.
    Doors, glass, and seals risk failing from differential pressures and vibration.

Tires, wheels, and rotating components

    Tire centrifugal stresses scale with (rotational speed)^2 — at typical wheel diameters, tires and rims will exceed material limits and fail (explosive blowout) long before 300 mph unless they’re specialized high‑speed racing tires.
    Wheel bearings, hubs, CV joints, driveshaft, and half‑shafts experience extreme loads and heating; bearings can seize, shafts can fracture.

Drivetrain, cooling, and brakes

    Power required to overcome aerodynamic drag scales roughly with v^3 — enormous engine/gearbox loading and overheating; transmission and differential likely to overheat, seize, or fail.
    Cooling systems cannot reject the heat; oil/gear/fluid breakdown and thermal expansion lead to seal failures and leaks.
    Brakes are essentially ineffective at maintaining or safely reducing speed from 300 mph; any stop relies on aerodynamic braking and long runout.

Structural and aeroelastic failure

    Aeroelastic flutter of thin panels, wings, or roof can rapidly escalate until parts fracture.
    Chassis and suspension experience huge dynamic loads; fatigue or instantaneous failure of suspension arms, subframe mounts, or steering components is likely.

Safety systems and occupant risk

    Passenger restraints, seats, and the interior are not designed for crash energies at that speed; survivability in any abrupt event is effectively zero.
    Even without collision, interior vibration, pressure differentials, and flying debris create lethal risk.

Environmental factors and road suitability

    No public road offers the run length, surface quality, or protection needed; surface imperfections, debris, or crosswind gusts at 300 mph will produce immediate catastrophic outcomes.

Do you get it yet? Your comfortable speed of 1200 mph is comfortable, because it is within structural limits for air speed. Multiply that by five, and you get a catastrophic failure. Likewise for a car. There are also structural limits for all objects within an atmosphere, and when you get into to 60,000s of mph you're well in the threshold.

60 mph is not that fast.

You’ve never dumped a motorcycle at 60 mph, have you?  Trust me, you don’t have to be going very fast to get a nasty case of road rash.

But you still don’t get it, do you.  The earth’s atmosphere is ridiculously thin compared to its diameter.  In the same way that you don’t feel 1000 mph winds at the equator because the atmosphere is spinning at the same rate as the earth, you don’t feel 67,000 mph winds as the earth orbits the sun because the atmosphere is moving at the same rate as the earth as it hurtles through the vacuum of space.

Oh sure, you can get a road rash at 60 mph, maybe.

But what do you think would happen at a mere double that speed? Say, if you hit a slick puddle or something.

If you even manage to survive, I imagine you can tell me what sort of "rash" you'd get. Probably a compound fracture all up and down your body.

No, I don't "get it" because I don't believe it. The RE supposedly has  760 miles from surface straight down to core.  And 62 miles up until space. But 62 miles is nothing to sneeze at.

The volume of water needed to fill a pool the size of Earth's diameter (about 7,917.5 miles or 12,742 km) to the Kármán line (approximately 62 miles or 100 km above sea level) would be about 332,500,000 cubic miles.

Now let's ask AI:
What would happen to an object moving at the aforementioned 67,100 mph with that much atmosphere surrounding it?

Assumptions made

The object is moving at 67,100 mph ≈ 30,000 m/s (rounded).    "332,500,000 cubic miles of atmosphere" — treat as a very large column/volume of gas the object passes through; composition ≈ Earth's atmosphere (mostly N2/O2) at near–sea-level density unless you want a different profile.
Object size, shape, mass, and entry angle are unspecified — I’ll assume a dense solid (e.g., rock/metal) roughly meter-to-kilometer scale; behaviour scales qualitatively with size/mass.

Short answer

At ~30 km/s through a large volume of atmosphere the object experiences extreme aerodynamic heating, strong shock formation, rapid deceleration (if small enough), and potentially fragmentation or vaporization; it will produce a bright plasma/fireball, a powerful shock wave, and deposit enormous energy into the atmosphere along its path.

Key physical effects (concise)

Mach number and shock: speed ≈ 30 km/s >> speed of sound, so a strong bow shock forms, compressing and heating air to plasma temperatures.
Aerodynamic heating: friction + shock heating heats the surface; for small/medium objects this causes ablation and melting; for larger masses surface heating may not stop the core but still causes mass loss.
Deceleration & energy deposition: kinetic energy E = 1/2 m v^2. Energy per unit mass at 30 km/s is ~4.5×10^8 J/kg. Even a small mass yields huge energy release; large objects deposit energy over atmospheric column height, creating explosions (airbursts) or ground impact.
Fragmentation: pressure gradients and thermal stresses can break the object into fragments, each creating its own fireball/shock (e.g., Chelyabinsk 2013).
Fireball, ionization, light: heated air and ablated material emit bright light (visible + UV) and ionize to plasma.
Blast wave & overpressure: rapid energy release creates a shock wave capable of damaging structures and causing injuries at distances depending on energy.
Long-term atmosphere effects (for very large energies): dust/aerosols injected high can alter climate regionally/globally depending on scale.

Quantitative examples (illustrative; choose mass to see scale)

    Energy per kilogram: ~4.5×10^8 J/kg.
        1,000‑kg object → ~4.5×10^11 J (~0.11 kilotons TNT).
        10^6‑kg (1,000‑ton) → ~4.5×10^14 J (~108 kilotons).
        10^9‑kg → ~4.5×10^17 J (~108 megatons).
    Chelyabinsk meteor (≈12–20 m, ~10^7–10^8 kg) exploded with ~400–500 kilotons equivalent — consistent with these scalings.

Role of your stated "332,500,000 cubic miles"

    That volume is enormous (for context, Earth’s atmosphere mass is fixed; a volume number without density/profile is ambiguous). If you mean the object travels through an atmospheric volume that large, the main limiter is how long it remains interacting with dense air: most destructive heating/deceleration happens in the denser lower atmosphere; beyond a certain path length extra distance through thin upper air adds little. If you mean the atmosphere mass is vastly larger than Earth’s, then effects scale with how much mass the object must push/heat — larger atmospheric mass increases drag and energy required to traverse it, so heating/ablation and deceleration are stronger and energy deposition distributed over a larger region.

Suppose I scaled this object inside the atmosphere up to Earth size, would it be safe enough for several people to ride on it

No — scaling the object to Earth size and moving it at 67,100 mph inside an atmosphere would not be safe for riders.

Brief reasons:

    At ~30 km/s the surface would experience extreme shock heating and form a plasma; any exposed surface or riders would be burned or vaporized.
    Atmospheric drag and resulting deceleration forces would produce enormous g‑loads and structural stresses far beyond what humans or known materials could survive.
    The bow shock and compressed air would create lethal temperatures and pressures; the object would ablate, fragment, or rapidly decelerate, causing catastrophic airbursts and blast waves.
    Even if somehow protected from heat, the aerodynamic and acoustic environment (shock waves, turbulence) and wind speeds would be unsurvivable.

If you mean a rigid habitat inside (i.e., living on a sphere the size of Earth moving through still air):

    You’d need perfect thermal shielding against plasma temperatures, an internal atmosphere isolated from the outside, and a structure able to withstand continuous multi‑megapascal pressures and gigapascal mechanical loads — far beyond current engineering and materials.
    Energy release scale: kinetic energy per kilogram ≈ 4.5×10^8 J; for Earth mass (~6×10^24 kg) total energy ~1.4×10^33 J — vastly larger than all known terrestrial energy scales; interaction with the atmosphere would be catastrophic globally.

Conclusion: Not safe. Such an object would destroy itself and anything nearby; riding on it is not feasible with known physics or technology.

"Such an object would destroy itself and anything nearby..."

Thank you, AI, for so beautifully stating the obvious.

"Herp derp, why can't  people see that RE is the more rational conclusion?"

Because it isn't?

No, I don't "get it" because I don't believe it. The RE supposedly has  760 miles from surface straight down to core. 

I wouldn't believe that either, because it's not true.

And 62 miles up until space. But 62 miles is nothing to sneeze at.

The Karman line is generally accepted as the "beginning" of space, but it's more of a transition where the air starts to become too thin to generate enough lift to support winged aircraft flight.  However that does not mean that it's a proper vacuum that you would expect in deeper space.  It's also about 1.57% of the earth's radius.

Quote

The volume of water needed to fill a pool the size of Earth's diameter (about 7,917.5 miles or 12,742 km) to the Kármán line (approximately 62 miles or 100 km above sea level) would be about 332,500,000 cubic miles.

Now let's ask AI:
What would happen to an object moving at the aforementioned 67,100 mph with that much atmosphere surrounding it?

Why don't you just ask your AI buddy something useful, like why the earth's atmosphere isn't stripped away as it orbits the sun at 67,100 mph?

Because I have common sense. I ask the AI which is programmed to defend Round Earth if I ask directly, what would happen to objects of similar size and speed and atmosphere, and it always tells the truth about your claims.

• Let's assume it is sheared away by the intense speed. Atmosphere is gone right? No air to breathe, you all die.
• Okay so somehow, the atmosphere keeps pace? You all burn up, you all die. Also, nearby satellites are ionized by the shockwave.

This is what we call a Morton's Fork. Your argument is doomed either way.

I wouldn't believe that either, because it's not true.

Doesn't matter what the proposed depth is. The actual truth of the matter, is human beings have only ever drilled about 8 miles, before the drills broke consistently. So the theoretical fields of lava and magnetic core are things we actually have to guess at based on:
(1) The North Pole, (2) lava that spews up from the ground. But the idea that lava is everywhere is absurd. We would have unstable ground if it all were  hot liquid below. Instead the fault lines have high pressure buildup.  And we know nothing about Earth's actual layers because we can only reach so far into the depths.

Yes, I know the "beginning of space" thing. It does not help your argument, and in fact makes it worse.

Because I have common sense.

I beg to differ.

I ask the AI which is programmed to defend Round Earth if I ask directly, what would happen to objects of similar size and speed and atmosphere, and it always tells the truth about your claims.

But you don’t ask in such a way that it considers the effects of gravity or that it’s traveling through the vacuum of space.

This is what we call a Morton's Fork. Your argument is doomed either way.

No, it’s more of a loaded question.  You ask in such a way that you get the answer you want, but not necessarily the right answer.

You can test

Where you have no explanation in your delusion other than BS and magic how a 32 diameter sun stays in orbit in atmosphere, what keeps comets and the natural satellites around planets moving, and what keeps the hole night sky moving.

But when RE with physics explains why the night sky moves for example, you throw a shit fit. Or why comets move. 

FE is stupid. 

Where you have no explanation in your delusion other than BS and magic how a 32 diameter sun stays in orbit in atmosphere, what keeps comets and the natural satellites around planets moving, and what keeps the hole night sky moving.

But when RE with physics explains why the night sky moves for example, you throw a shit fit. Or why comets move.

FE is stupid. 

Again, explanations might as well be excuses if they only provide a guess on how things work. 

RE ignores the actual wandering star motion of planets, shoving all motion to Earth's bonkers multi-vector motion. Meanwhile, the stars don't wander, but orbit in a fixed wheel. RE just handwaves this entire thing, claiming this rotation while orbiting while trailing the sun makes the perfect nightly orbit, not the chaotic mess that would actually result from all these different motions. All of this assuming while all this motion is happening, that the atmosphere does not burn up at 67,000, nor produce unending shockwaves that blow everything up, but instead all is still and peaceful, and you can quietly fish (with a license, of course, because you fucking globalists ruin every activity).