FE claim A single object cannot have two different speeds

FE’ers get so many things wrong that it isn’t surprising that they get this wrong too.  Geocentric does not necessarily mean flat earth.  The prevailing per-Copernican models since Ptolemy were round earth geocentric.

You also get things wrong.

If you ask most flat Earthers, is the Earth round? They'd say no.
If you then showed them a record player, they'd say yes.

Circle =/= sphere

The roundness that sailors proved was as the ancient people put it,  "like a discus." But ancient people until about Isaac Newton's generation wouldn't go so far as to think the Earth is a ball. They'd be declared idiots of the highest order. I think he got hit too hard by that apple.

So no, what most of people believed was that you can return to your original location, because the Earth is round like a discus (or record), and that the sun, moon, and stars orbit it.

This is a flat Earth cosmology, with the only thing in debate whether you can circle the world or move ever outward.

sailors

You ignore how celestial navigation works the way it does.



Where FE still doesn’t explain why ships disappear bottom up becoming physically blocked from view going to sea.

Quote from: Erland on April 05, 2026, 11:44:31 AM

 It disproves your claim (that has nothing to do with Euclidean Geometry) that a P 1000-camera would make hidden parts of objects mysteriously appear. This video shows that it isn't so. And the image isn't so blurred that the conclusion is .

Made a gif from the video.  The address to the gif. 

https://i.imgur.com/XjmpWwV.gif

Sorry if you’re in the UK and it doesn’t load on the page below and doesn’t play. 

sailors

Speaking of sailors and staying on actual topic of this thread…

What would you call an airplane stopped on a flight deck of a moving aircraft carrier with people circling the aircraft doing inspections?  And doing refuelling and load outs?

Hmmmm, about that.

Celestial navigators would see this sort of thing if Earth were really a sphere.

Western Stars          //       Wall                \\            Eastern Stars

_______________//                                   \\__________________

Or haven't you noticed that as about 30 N, on a globe, there's about 60 degrees worth of mound between you and stars on the opposite hemisphere (not north and south, but east vs west)?

No, stars are not restricted to the eastern hemisphere; they can be seen from both the eastern and western hemispheres depending on the observer's location. However, certain constellations and stars may be more prominent or visible at different times of the year in each hemisphere.

The Earth might be "round", but it is decidedly flat. You can see all stars, you just can't see some as well because they are farther east during certain times a year.

The roundness that sailors proved was as the ancient people put it,  "like a discus."

Which sailors used the disc map for navigation?

But ancient people until about Isaac Newton's generation wouldn't go so far as to think the Earth is a ball.

The Ancient Greeks would like to have a word with you.

Hmmmm, about that.

Celestial navigators would see this sort of thing if Earth were really a sphere.

Western Stars          //       Wall                \\            Eastern Stars

_______________//                                   \\__________________

Or haven't you noticed that as about 30 N, on a globe, there's about 60 degrees worth of mound between you and stars on the opposite hemisphere (not north and south, but east vs west)?

Just when I thought you couldn't post anything more stupid.

It only sounds stupid to you because you haven't thought it through.



I'll wait.

No? You're facing outward in opposite directions, and if you turn toward where the opposite stars should be, you are literally blocked from seeing them.

The Ancient Greeks would like to have a word with you.

I'm busy. Tell them to leave me an email.

It only sounds stupid to you because you haven't thought it through.



I'll wait.

No? You're facing outward in opposite directions, and if you turn toward where the opposite stars should be, you are literally blocked from seeing them.

Or, you just wait a few hours until the earth rotates them into view.  Or are talking about the stars that can't be seen because they're currently on the daylight side of the earth?

Quote

The Ancient Greeks would like to have a word with you.

I'm busy. Tell them to leave me an email.

They told me to tell you that you're an idiot.

Or, you just wait a few hours until the earth rotates them into view.  Or are talking about the stars that can't be seen because they're currently on the daylight side of the earth?

I'm talking about the fact that most nights, the stars around the northern  hemisphere move around an axis, and most of our northern stars can be seen.
"But bulma, the North Star wobbles, it isn't the true center!" Not the point. Try to keep up. The closer something is to the center, the sooner it is to seeing it, if somehow you couldn't.

Not so much in the southern hemisphere.


That's nice. Have they figured out how to use email yet? I'm expecting one, you see.

Gonna answer questions in the other active thread, because it sucks to field two threads at once. Good night.

Lol.

Where you bring up the same debunked crap over and over again to derail multiple threads where it’s been repeatedly explained to you in thread after thread.

Lmao

Do you even know what thread you are posting in Bulba?

FE claim A single object cannot have two different speeds

What would you call an airplane stopped on a flight deck of a moving aircraft carrier with people circling the aircraft doing inspections?  And doing refueling and load outs? Where people are climbing up and down about the moving ship.  With different speeds relative to each other. 

Perhaps if you paid attention to what you say, you would realize you are in fact the one making the derailment situation.

What would you call an airplane stopped on a flight deck of a moving aircraft carrier with people circling the aircraft doing inspections?  And doing refueling and load outs? Where people are climbing up and down about the moving ship.  With different speeds relative to each other. 

Different, as in separate. An object can have two unified speeds (as in rubbing my belly and patting my head), but it cannot have two different speeds.

Can these people do inspections while the plane is flying? No, they cannot. This is because their motion (walking up and down) is separate from the speed of the plane in motion. Even if the plane is only going maybe five or ten miles because the brakes are loose, they have to follow in a vehicle, then somehow do something they would normally require the plane to be perfectly still for (whether loading baggage or trying to weld/screw plane brakes back together). Even if you match the speed, you're having momentum while attempting to be still.

Empty a bookshelf.  Now, while running, try to reshelve those books, without slowing down or stopping, in alphabetical order.
It cannot be done.

Why momentum matters

• Relative speed (5 mph ≈ 2.24 m/s) means when you place a book into a stationary shelf, the book experiences a sudden change in velocity. If not braked/controlled, it will hit the back or neighboring books, tilt, or bounce, ruining uprightness and order.
• Inertial torque: if the book is moving when its bottom contacts the shelf, friction at the bottom and a lateral impulse can create a tipping moment that makes it lean.
• Small misalignments accumulate: slightly angled inserts or slight forward momentum cause cascading shifts in adjacent books.

The book and you are moving at one speed, the shelf is still, and the books flop over because they remain in motion.  They think it can technically be done, but I worked at Amazon as a picker and stower, and at libraries. I know better. You have to stop. In fact, they assume there is braking at some point.

Different, as in separate.

Nope.

It’s about frame of reference.  The airplane stopped on the flight deck of a moving carrier to the person sitting in airplane isn’t moving relative to the flight deck / aircraft carrier. It’s effectively not moving in their frame of reference of the fought deck.  The people waking around the airplane loading fuel and doing inspections are walking around a stopped airplane.  A airplane not moving on the flight deck.  People walking about five miles an hour are circling a stopped aircraft on the flight deck have no problem circling the stopped jet in a system moving at or over 17 miles an hour.  Or people on the aircraft carrier have no problems even walking forward or aft with the carrier moving at its top speed of about 35 miles an hour. They can still walk normally and still walk forward, aft, up and down stairs, circle airplanes to do inspections and maintenance. 

Empty a bookshelf. 

I can easily read a book in a minivan going 70 mph as a passenger.  I can pass the book around to all the people in minivan loaded to capacity.  I can put the book in the glove box.  I can take the book out of the glove box.  I don’t usually have shelves in a car, but I can easily put the book in a box, tote, or bag.  Or a backpack.  I can unpack a backpack, and reorganize it if not driving.  I can even pour a glass of water. All while the minivan is going 70 mph.

Your false assurances are stupid Bulma. 

Different, as in separate. An object can have two unified speeds (as in rubbing my belly and patting my head), but it cannot have two different speeds.

The aircraft carrier is moving relative to the water.  The airplane is moving relative to the water.  The airplane is also moving relative to the aircraft carrier.  That means that the airplane is moving at one speed relative to the water and another speed (and direction) relative to the aircraft carrier.  The aircraft and the carrier are generally moving into the wind during takeoff and landing operations.  That means that the airplane and the carrier are moving relative to each other, the water and the wind all at the same time.  This is why landing a plane on an aircraft carrier has been shown to be more stressful than actual combat operations.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 27, 2026, 06:19:12 PM

Different, as in separate.

Nope.

It’s about frame of reference.  The airplane stopped on the flight deck of a moving carrier to the person sitting in airplane isn’t moving relative to the flight deck / aircraft carrier. It’s effectively not moving in their frame of reference of the fought deck.  The people waking around the airplane loading fuel and doing inspections are walking around a stopped airplane.  A airplane not moving on the flight deck.  People walking about five miles an hour are circling a stopped aircraft on the flight deck have no problem circling the stopped jet in a system moving at or over 17 miles an hour.  Or people on the aircraft carrier have no problems even walking forward or aft with the carrier moving at its top speed of about 35 miles an hour. They can still walk normally and still walk forward, aft, up and down stairs, circle airplanes to do inspections and maintenance.

It sounds like you think people walking around, maneuvering around other moving objects, is comparable to doing work on a moving plane. I said the plane was moving. Which is the point, we're talking about two different simultaneous speeds from an object.

Is it possible to do work on an airplane that because of faulty brakes is moving at 15 mph

No — not safely. A loose/faulty-brake airplane moving under its own power at ~15 mph is an uncontrolled, hazardous situation. Do not attempt work on, under, or around the aircraft. Immediate actions:

    Move everyone to a safe distance upwind and clear of the aircraft’s path.
    Alert airport operations, ground crew, or air traffic control immediately (use emergency frequency or tower).
    If available, apply emergency parking brakes or wheel chocks only by trained personnel following airline/airport procedures and wearing high-visibility PPE.
    Shut down power/thrust from the cockpit if pilots are aboard and able; do not attempt cockpit intervention unless you are qualified and authorized.
    Keep bystanders and vehicles away until trained ground responders secure the airplane.

They go on to say that even at 5 mph it's not safe. A trained crew with equipment has to basically halt its motion.

But what if you were moving at a steady 5 mph (I reduced its speed to 5 mph), matching the speed perfectly. Surely you could perform repairs on the brakes while in motion, right?

No. Performing repairs on an aircraft while it is rolling—even at a steady 5 mph and even if you can match speed—is unsafe and unacceptable.

• Any small change in thrust, steering, or surface friction can suddenly change speed or direction, producing crush or shear hazards.
• Working on landing gear/brakes requires stabilization, jacking/towing procedures, and isolation of systems (hydraulics, wheels, brakes) that cannot be done safely on a moving airplane.
• Tools, parts, or personnel can be caught under wheels or struck by ground equipment; loose debris creates foreign object damage (FOD) risks.
• Proper communication, permits, and trained ground crews are required; crew/passenger safety and regulatory rules prohibit unsanctioned in-motion maintenance.

So then I asked a "seemingly unrelated" question about ISS speed while in orbit.

Supposing a spacecraft flew by the ISS at matching speed, could they perfect repairs on it while the craft is in motion

No — not safely or practically. Even with perfectly matched velocity (i.e., same orbital speed and trajectory), performing repairs on a spacecraft while both vehicles remain unanchored and moving relative to Earth presents severe hazards and technical challenges:

• "Matching speed" in orbit eliminates large relative translation but does not remove tiny relative drift, rotation (attitude), or vibration; small forces from a hand, tool, or thruster can create uncontrolled relative motion.
• Without a secure attachment point, any reaction force from using tools will push the repairing astronaut and/or vehicle away (Newton's third law). Precise, continuous station-keeping or a robust physical tethering/berthing is needed.
• Many repairs require jacking, preload, torque, hydraulic isolation, or heavy tooling that depend on reaction loads through the vehicle structure—difficult or impossible without rigid mechanical support and proper restraints.
• EVA in vacuum requires suits, limited dexterity, and careful control of debris and particulates; small components or fasteners can become hazardous debris or cause foreign-object damage. EVAs impose constraints (suit consumables, decompression procedures, risk of depressurization). Emergency contingencies require immediate retrieval or safe haven — not possible if repairs destabilize relative motion.
• Space agencies require documented procedures, ground simulations, and controlled conditions (e.g., berthing to the station, use of robotic manipulators, or visiting vehicle docking) for on-orbit maintenance.

They recommend docking, effectively making your speed connected directly to the speed of the object in motion.

Do you get what I mean about different speeds yet? Even if supposedly the speeds are the same, they actually are not.

So when you say that a satellite is geostationary with Earth, I am telling you that in fact it is akin to a man trying to use a nailgun while in motion on a moving plane. "Matching speed" will not do what you think it will. I asked that scenario (obviously, momentum would cause a dangerous ricochet), then asked AI to compare this to a satellite hitting Earth. They gave a plausible but bullshit answer that doesn't account for the satellite having to adjust to two different speeds having different momentums.
The satellite is a guy with a nailgun not only chasing the plane at matching speed, but the plane is hydroplaning while he is aiming. Really? You really think it can hit a tower at even the same hemisphere?

It's very interesting sorting out truth from from using AI. But I think I got it.

It sounds like

That you can’t fathom how a person can walk around a stopped airplane on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier moving faster than the person can walk.  And somehow you stupidly is the RE’s fault.  Lol. 

Why do you think I cannot fathom moving as part of something?

The problem at your end is you cannot fathom anything I say.

Do you get what I mean about different speeds yet? Even if supposedly the speeds are the same, they actually are not.

No, I don't.  And giving your AI buddy stupid scenarios doesn't help.

Speed is always relative to something.  One moving object will have any number of different speeds relative to various other moving or stationary objects.  Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?  Seriously, why is this even a discussion?

Sometimes my parents make me lose patience.

But you're honestly worse.

Einstein and his idiotic relativity made a generation of idiots who parrot his ideas without truly understanding them.

Connected objects are relative to each other. Disconnected objects are not. "I can walk around on a moving platform." Yes, and? I said you could do that. This is connected momentum in the same way as you can jump while on a train.

Why is this hard to grasp, you ask? The thing is, I understand what you are trying to tell me. You on the other hand, probably because you think you're trying to teach me, and not the other way around, are incapable of learning. Believe me, I've tried, until my brain basically bleeds. The problem is that you pretend this is proof, when it isn't.

What I said you patently cannot do is (1) interact with an object (especially of different mass) while matching its speed. This is because momentum is retained by a moving thing, so interacting with an object even if matching speed creates skid. (2) You cannot be in movement and still at the same time. I used an example of shelving books while moving at 5 mph (basically a light run), to explain that if an object needs to be upright, and in place (alphabetical order) the addition of motion creates issues. You might pass the shelf without shelving even on book. Or you might shelve books only for them to fall over. (3) You cannot throw an object from a moving object and have it follow you current position. This is often cited as the Coriolis Effect (or part of it) but it's really just an object in point A moving in a straight line while you move to point B. Yes, you can throw a ball across a moving train towards an open window and have it exit the window, even if going in a straight line. But the moment it goes out the window, it appears to zip backwards. Actually at the point, it no longer shares momentum, so point A in a straight line when a train is moving will be passed. If you were at all interested in proving this, you'd have the crew mark a point with a red X and throw it straight out the window and that, the fetch it later on. Now, if you tossed it across the train, however many seconds it took to cross from the left to the right of the train is, times the mph.

Which is why we can know the Earth very definitely does not move. Satellites would be unable to function properly. They would hit Cleveland when aiming for NYC or so. If the Earth were still, satellites could also be nonmoving. But because the satellite is "throwing out the window" of annorbiting rotating objevt it fails.

Sometimes

It’s beyond belief you can’t get an airplane can be standing still on the flight deck of a moving carrier while people climb about, and circle the aircraft.  While other people are walking forward to aft.  Or aft to forward.  Going up and down between decks.  While pouring drinks and serving meals. 

Does flat earth make you this stupid. 

Einstein and his idiotic relativity made a generation of idiots who parrot his ideas without truly understanding them.

Hahahaha!

You on the other hand, probably because you think you're trying to teach me, and not the other way around, are incapable of learning.

AH-HAHAHA!

No one needs to learn whatever nonsense you pull out of your arse.

Some of us took the time to study real mechanics.  Learned how it works and how we know it works, repeated and verified the key experiments, learned how to derive the equations, and use them for real life applications.

Other people who learned all the same stuff designed and built every piece of machinery and technology in the world, from the industrial revolution onwards.

You could try to understand what the rest of humanity learned over hundreds of years instead of arrogantly trying to “teach” people whatever bollocks you’ve dreamt up.

It’s beyond belief you can’t get an airplane can be standing still on the flight deck of a moving carrier while people climb about, and circle the aircraft.

I said I could. It's beyond belief that you cannot understand that I can understand what you said but that only part of the issue. Moving plane. Moving plane!

Are you AI? Surely none but a chatbot can be this lacking in comprehension.

---

That's not what it said, Bored.

It said this is a fucking stupid question, but I'll answer anyway, but you'll need to go to the extended DuckGpt, where we'll talk about how it is horribly dangerous to attempt repairs on a moving plane.

But surely if I match the speed, speed becomes zero (like all the Round Earthers claim with their funny no acceleration models). No speed becomes momentum, and momentum causes skid. Also, you're likely to get run over by difference in mass. Maybe use one of the correct stopping devices instead?
But what if I tried to match the speed of the plane and hit it with a nailgun? AI are fun to ask Socratic questions with. They told me this would be a Bad Idea. Matching speed doesn't mean matching in other parameters.

When it contacts the ground

Something like this but reversed..

Mythbusters Plane on Conveyor Belt Ending


mythbusters file # 7: Knight rider

What I'm arguing is something so obvious even you should be getting it.

The tire braking system is loose, causing the plane to roll forward.
You can't run ahead at equal speed and tighten the tires while the tires are moving. Nor should you. Youwilldie.

What I'm arguing

Your refusal or being too stupid to understand frame of reference isn’t our problem. 

What I'm arguing is something so obvious even you should be getting it.

The tire braking system is loose, causing the plane to roll forward.
You can't run ahead at equal speed and tighten the tires while the tires are moving. Nor should you. Youwilldie.

Matching speed is one thing.  Interacting with something while matching speed is a completely different thing.  It sounds like you’re saying that aerial refueling should be impossible, yet the military does it all the time.  Even relay race runners shouldn’t be able to pass the baton.  What about lovers holding hands while walking?

You don’t need AI to tell you that working on moving parts is a bad idea.  That’s what OSHA is for.

OSHA will tell you it's against safety regulations.

AI will tell you in graphic detail (because it is not a human, and doesn't understand humans can get nightmares) why it is against safety regulations.

Matching speed is one thing.  Interacting with something while matching speed is a completely different thing.  It sounds like you’re saying that aerial refueling should be impossible, yet the military does it all the time. 

Interacting with something: recommended speed is 0-1 mph.
Chasing after a rolling plane: 5-10 mph.

Do you get what I mean by two different speeds? Momentum from running cannot simply be tossed aside.

Used to be just common sense was enough, or experience (often someone else's experience). I'm still lost at why anyone would even attempt this?

You're not attempting it. I'm saying that this is the point of what I'm arguing. You can't do this sorta thing.

---

Are you going to admit I'm right, and close this stupid thread?

Nah that's too much to ask. You'll double down as always, and say of course this is possible. Fine, you try it!

Quote

Used to be just common sense was enough, or experience (often someone else's experience). I'm still lost at why anyone would even attempt this?

You're not attempting it. I'm saying that this is the point of what I'm arguing. You can't do this sorta thing.

You’re right that trying to work on an airplane’s brakes is a bad idea.  We just disagree as to why it’s a bad idea.  Momentum really has nothing to do with it.  It’s more the stability of both that matters.

By the way, how can 2 jugglers keep tossing multiple balls at each other while walking around the stage?

Interacting with something: recommended speed is 0-1 mph.
Chasing after a rolling plane: 5-10 mph.

Do you get what I mean by two different speeds?

I get you try to creat BS arguments to derail a thread.

I wouldn’t work on a stationary pump energised and pumping.  But have no problem on a good highway opening the glove box to the car while the car is going 70 mph, eating a hamburger, or pouring a drink of water if the highway is smooth. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 19, 2026, 06:28:25 AM

 They are firmly fastened.

How are meals, sauces, pouring drinks, and drinks firmly fastened?




Anyway people dining and moving about on high speed rail.





Or in flight meals?






What is moving at one revolution every 24 hours supposed to do again…

Lol