Yeah. If anything rises "perfectly straight up in the sky" and "hovers" (assuming by "hover" we mean "fly without moving" as is the common usage of the word), then whenever it lands, no matter how much later in the future, it will be at the same spot it took off at. I'm not sure what the point of the comment is, these are just the definitions of words.
Also, if you take off and fly straight north at 500 miles per hour for one hour and then land, you will be 500 miles north of your starting point (assuming you started more than 500 miles away from the north pole). Also just definitions.
That is what I was assuming you meant. I figured that this was some Eric Duvey "200 proofs" sort of argument. That is why I posted that something that is "hovering" will remain over the same spot on the ground simply by the definition of the word "hover," and since it remains over the same spot on the ground, when it descends it lands on the same spot it raised off of initially. There is nothing mysterious about this happening.
I gotta say, I really try to remain open to the flat earth and other "globe rejecting" people. I'm not "triggered" by flat earth, as the meme goes. I try to hear them out and watch their documentaries or whatever to see if anyone has a good argument for their position. I always see things like this, and as respectfully as possible, this is why so many people do not take flat earth people seriously.
There is a difference between thinking the globe model is wrong and saying you have found a situation where the globe model makes an incorrect prediction. If you think "the spinning ball" is false then that is fine, people are entitled to their opinions and beliefs. But saying you found someplace where it makes an incorrect prediction is not an opinion, it is a factual claim. In all honesty, do you really believe that helicopter hovering is mechanically inconsistent with and cannot be explained by the globe model? I mean, is that honestly your understanding of the so called "spinning ball"?
If u raise a helicopter off the ground perfectly straight up in the sky at maximum altitude..
hover for hours..
bring it straight back down....
you'll land in the exact same spot u took off at.
Yeah. If anything rises "perfectly straight up in the sky" and "hovers" (assuming by "hover" we mean "fly without moving" as is the common usage of the word), then whenever it lands, no matter how much later in the future, it will be at the same spot it took off at. I'm not sure what the point of the comment is, these are just the definitions of words.
Also, if you take off and fly straight north at 500 miles per hour for one hour and then land, you will be 500 miles north of your starting point (assuming you started more than 500 miles away from the north pole). Also just definitions.
I thought it would've been assumed that it makes no sense for that to happen because of the supposed spin of the earth.
Exactly what the post is about..
That is what I was assuming you meant. I figured that this was some Eric Duvey "200 proofs" sort of argument. That is why I posted that something that is "hovering" will remain over the same spot on the ground simply by the definition of the word "hover," and since it remains over the same spot on the ground, when it descends it lands on the same spot it raised off of initially. There is nothing mysterious about this happening.
I gotta say, I really try to remain open to the flat earth and other "globe rejecting" people. I'm not "triggered" by flat earth, as the meme goes. I try to hear them out and watch their documentaries or whatever to see if anyone has a good argument for their position. I always see things like this, and as respectfully as possible, this is why so many people do not take flat earth people seriously.
There is a difference between thinking the globe model is wrong and saying you have found a situation where the globe model makes an incorrect prediction. If you think "the spinning ball" is false then that is fine, people are entitled to their opinions and beliefs. But saying you found someplace where it makes an incorrect prediction is not an opinion, it is a factual claim. In all honesty, do you really believe that helicopter hovering is mechanically inconsistent with and cannot be explained by the globe model? I mean, is that honestly your understanding of the so called "spinning ball"?
Its nice you're open minded to question things. It's called critical thinking
What u said there lacked any all common sense. If something is hovering over a spinning earth than it should not land in the same spot. Simple as...
I'll go with what my eyes, ears and plain old common sense over what a bunch of masons and jesuits changed world wide a couple of centuries ago.
U keep on trusting the word of known liars but again try to be a lil more opened minded. I was guilty of that arrogance myself not to long ago.