Honestly, this needed a lighter color palette. I think the film looks really good, but Superman needs to look more like something akin to the Avengers.3
On the other-hand, perhaps the palette fits this more realistic take on Supes.
No, what you said was that most aircraft would disagree with the idea that momentum must be conserved (because what I said was nothing more than that). That's false; it must be.Most aircraft would disagree with this statement.
In that case, I suggest you read up on the causes of aerodynamic lift.
You mean the part where its the result of lower pressure on the upper half of the wing as opposed to the under side of the wing? Yes. That's an inherently dangerous example of pulling or pushing masses outside the aircraft that could plausibly be harmful or fatal to the people around the plane. Oh, wait... No, it's not.
Or are you confusing propulsion with lift? Maybe you should read up on that.
Take for example a glider. it can bank and turn with no means of on board propulsion, but it does use lift. Technically, assuming th glider didn't clip you, it could fly and turn within inches of a person and do no real harm. You might get your hair messed up and be frightened. Now, a jumbo jet attempting the same thing would be a problem. Those engines providing propulsion can ruin a person's day real quick. Superman has no engines that we can see. He seems to use "force of will" for propulsion. There are no masses being pushed against.
You must not have seen Catwoman, Batman & Robin, Superman III or IV, The Punisher '89, Wolverine, Man-Thing, Ghost Rider 1 and 2, or Hulk.I've been waiting for a long time for a good Superman movie and I finally got it with Man of Steel, I loved it. Superman Returns might be the worst comic book movie I've ever seen, it was awful.
No, what you said was that most aircraft would disagree with the idea that momentum must be conserved (because what I said was nothing more than that). That's false; it must be.In that case, I suggest you read up on the causes of aerodynamic lift.
You mean the part where its the result of lower pressure on the upper half of the wing as opposed to the under side of the wing? Yes. That's an inherently dangerous example of pulling or pushing masses outside the aircraft that could plausibly be harmful or fatal to the people around the plane. Oh, wait... No, it's not.
Or are you confusing propulsion with lift? Maybe you should read up on that.
Take for example a glider. it can bank and turn with no means of on board propulsion, but it does use lift. Technically, assuming th glider didn't clip you, it could fly and turn within inches of a person and do no real harm. You might get your hair messed up and be frightened. Now, a jumbo jet attempting the same thing would be a problem. Those engines providing propulsion can ruin a person's day real quick. Superman has no engines that we can see. He seems to use "force of will" for propulsion. There are no masses being pushed against.
Also, I was talking about Superman changing his trajectory, which, if it were to occur under real world physics, would mean that a compensating force must be applied to another body. For example, say he's floating stationary right next to Lois Lane one second, and then the next second, he's flying away at 500 miles per hour. If the compensating momentum were imparted to Lois, she'd be dead.
Now, am I saying that has to occur? No, I explicitly said that that level of realism is not necessary. I simply said, it would plausible if it did kill her.
Edit: And I also said that the momentum could be imparted to a massive and virtually stationary body, such as the Earth itself. Of course, this need not occur, either.
You must not have seen Catwoman, Batman & Robin, Superman III or IV, The Punisher '89, Wolverine, Man-Thing, Ghost Rider 1 and 2, or Hulk.I've been waiting for a long time for a good Superman movie and I finally got it with Man of Steel, I loved it. Superman Returns might be the worst comic book movie I've ever seen, it was awful.
To name just a few.![]()
No, what you said was that most aircraft would disagree with the idea that momentum must be conserved (because what I said was nothing more than that). That's false; it must be.You mean the part where its the result of lower pressure on the upper half of the wing as opposed to the under side of the wing? Yes. That's an inherently dangerous example of pulling or pushing masses outside the aircraft that could plausibly be harmful or fatal to the people around the plane. Oh, wait... No, it's not.
Or are you confusing propulsion with lift? Maybe you should read up on that.
Take for example a glider. it can bank and turn with no means of on board propulsion, but it does use lift. Technically, assuming th glider didn't clip you, it could fly and turn within inches of a person and do no real harm. You might get your hair messed up and be frightened. Now, a jumbo jet attempting the same thing would be a problem. Those engines providing propulsion can ruin a person's day real quick. Superman has no engines that we can see. He seems to use "force of will" for propulsion. There are no masses being pushed against.
Also, I was talking about Superman changing his trajectory, which, if it were to occur under real world physics, would mean that a compensating force must be applied to another body. For example, say he's floating stationary right next to Lois Lane one second, and then the next second, he's flying away at 500 miles per hour. If the compensating momentum were imparted to Lois, she'd be dead.
Now, am I saying that has to occur? No, I explicitly said that that level of realism is not necessary. I simply said, it would plausible if it did kill her.
Edit: And I also said that the momentum could be imparted to a massive and virtually stationary body, such as the Earth itself. Of course, this need not occur, either.
Two words from your original post that I quoted. "during flight"
Then in your followup post you introduced lift, as seen above.
A change in trajectory can be achieved through flight without using "outside forces"as my example above demonstrates. Now instead of trajectory, maybe you meant to say velocity?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.