I was thinking about this today, and even if one were to build such a perfect machine and run it on a windless day, when the copter started to drift westwards it would then be in a relative wind and so come to a stop eventually unless a horizontal thrust was applied.
As to your copter in Florida, these "hovering arguments" are always relying on a naive picture. Aircraft are built for the air, so their performance is relative to what the air is doing. In the globe model, the earth has a 4000 mile radius and rotates once every 24 hours. This does imply, as anti globes always dismiss as ridiculous, that at the equator the earth is moving a bit more than 1000 mph. In Florida, it would be more like 850 mph or so because it is at about 30 degrees of latitude. When the helicopter is on the ground, it is moving the same speed. Also, all the air is moving on average that speed, and what we call "wind" is really any difference between the air speed and the ground speed.
So the globe model would be that when the helicopter takes off into "hover," it is moving eastward at the local ambient ~850 mph and it lifts into air also moving on average that speed except for whatever breeze there might be. If the helicopter actually were to hover so that it would be stationary according to a non rotating earth, this would involve flying west through the air at over 800 miles per hour, which is clearly impossible.
Why would the spin... as you state?
In the thought experiment I said before, the rising object at tropical and lower mid latitudes would be pushed west for the same reason that someone who tries to walk from the interior to the perimeter of a running merry-go-round is "pushed backwards." In order to rotate once per 24 hours when you are a mile up in the sky, you need to be moving a little faster. If you do not push yourself faster, it will appear on the ground like you were "pushed backwards" which on earth is west.
A helium balloon isn't affected by its spin...it just floots up
As I said, at the equator, where the up/down-east/west Coriolis is maximum, it would be about a quarter mph for rising a mile. First of all, at a mile up you would not be able to resolve this drift in the balloon, especially when it is masked by random winds. On top of that, even if we could stop all wind and measure the balloon precisely with a telescope, the effect would die out quickly, because once the balloon is "pushed west" (to the person on the ground it appears this way), then the balloon is in a relative wind. We said there is no wind in this experiment, so if the balloon is moving west it experiences drag and so "slows down" (this "slowing down" as it appears to the person on the ground is really a "speeding up" eastward).
planes traveling east to west and vice versa should have way different times
Again, this is the naive view. The plane is a machine that flies in the air. The globe model is a rotating earth with an atmosphere that is on average rotating with it, and "wind" is a difference between air speed and ground speed. You may find it counterintuitive, you may choose to reject it, that's fine. But standard Newtonian mechanics says that if the ground is moving from Los Angeles to Atlanta at about 850 mph, then the air above it more or less is too. A plane on the runway waiting to take off is moving that same speed. When it does take off, it does so into this "moving air" and that is what it flies in. So if there is no wind, the flight time is about the same in both directions. If there is significant wind, then one way is a bit faster than the other (the one with a "tail wind.")
No offense but I read paragraphs of mental gymnastics. As per the baloon floating up while the heavy aircraft is subjected to this invisible and selective pull and drag. A mosquito isn't affected but 747s are.
It doesn't need to be this complicated when dealing with straight up buoyancy and density. Exactly what my senses are experiencing.
Still not sure the answer to why a plane traveling east to west has the same travel time coming back when clearly according to the spin one way should be significantly faster but I digress.
Every culture believed the earth to be flat including the )ews and the Torah.
This changed when masons and Jesuits decided too.
Again I'll trust my senses, what the Bible states and every single culture proceeding us over a bunch of known scum.
OK, that's fine. I tried to give a relatively complete answer and maybe that was a mistake. The TLDR is that the rotation affects everything the same way, the helicopter, the jet, the balloon, the mosquito, everything. The effect is generally very small and completely dominated by other disturbances, most notably the wind. This is to say a balloon does not "float straight up" but is subject to the earth rotation as well, you just aren't able to see it.
The flat earth material always appeals to "buoyancy" and "density" but it never rigorously defines how these things behave so I'm not sure what to say. In conventional physics, they both have precise definitions, along with of course gravity. In fact, buoyancy is defined in terms of gravity and density (in a fluid medium).
Maybe my explanation was confusing, but there is no issue with the plane flight times being the same. The plane is flying some speed (e.g. 500 mph) in the air. The air is (very roughly) moving with the earth. Therefore the flight times east and west are the same (this is no longer true when there is significant winds).
Its easy when it comes to buoyancy and density. Anything heavier than air will sink and lighter than air will rise such as a helium balloon or smoke. No magical gravity that works on some things but not others...simple as...and remember its still considered the THEORY of gravity.
The plane traveling against the spin of the planet surely should take longer than the plane traveling with the spin..?
Anything heavier than air will sink and lighter than air will rise such as a helium balloon or smoke.
Why? What causes that? The flat earth model implicitly assumes a preferred, "natural" direction of falling / down. Things fall in this direction, "down," because that is just the way that it is. Different densities then lead to the "sorting out" that we see, as the denser object is more likely to go down, and this phenomenon they call "buoyancy."
No magical gravity that works on some things but not others
Yes, because you have instead a "magical" principle of "density and buoyancy," whereas conventional physics has "gravity." The only argument is that FE says their model is universal and gravity is not. This is pretty much the opposite as the truth. As I have repeatedly said, in conventional Newtonian (and relativistic) physics, gravity is universal. It does not "work on some things but not others" it is literally the most universal of the four forces. In conventional physics, "buoyancy" is a phenomenon that appears in certain circumstances due to gravity, density, and fluid mechanics. Also, the "end result" of buoyancy is not in fact universal, and there are demonstrations in which it is violated, sometimes in an unstable fashion and sometimes in a stable fashion.
and remember its still considered the THEORY of gravity.
The plane traveling against the spin... Does this not make logical sense?
It obviously makes sense to the FE crowd because they cite this over and over again. To me, this is so obvious that it led me to assume that FEers were all trolling, but I have decided that this is not true. I guess all I can say is this. If you are on a train car and pacing up and down the aisle of the car, does it take you longer to go from the back of the car to the front than from the front to the back? By the FE argument, it must take longer to walk forward in the car "against its motion" and it must be faster to walk to the back "traveling with the motion."
Of course, I have to assume you know that the answer is "no" because you have been on a train or subway or ferry and walked on it in both directions. So you are well aware that you are walking relative to the floor of the vessel and it takes you equal time to go in both directions. And before you say "yes, but we are talking about flying," I would ask the same question about flying an RC helicopter or drone up and down the train / ferry. As long as you are inside, the air is moving with you, no matter how fast you are going, and so the RC copter flies the same time in both directions (if you were outside and there was relative wind, again, this is not true).
This is why I keep telling you that it is actually conventional physics that is more universal and consistent. FE has to pretend that for some reason, traveling on "the spinning ball" is different than walking up and down a subway car. It isn't.
I was thinking about this today, and even if one were to build such a perfect machine and run it on a windless day, when the copter started to drift westwards it would then be in a relative wind and so come to a stop eventually unless a horizontal thrust was applied.
As to your copter in Florida, these "hovering arguments" are always relying on a naive picture. Aircraft are built for the air, so their performance is relative to what the air is doing. In the globe model, the earth has a 4000 mile radius and rotates once every 24 hours. This does imply, as anti globes always dismiss as ridiculous, that at the equator the earth is moving a bit more than 1000 mph. In Florida, it would be more like 850 mph or so because it is at about 30 degrees of latitude. When the helicopter is on the ground, it is moving the same speed. Also, all the air is moving on average that speed, and what we call "wind" is really any difference between the air speed and the ground speed.
So the globe model would be that when the helicopter takes off into "hover," it is moving eastward at the local ambient ~850 mph and it lifts into air also moving on average that speed except for whatever breeze there might be. If the helicopter actually were to hover so that it would be stationary according to a non rotating earth, this would involve flying west through the air at over 800 miles per hour, which is clearly impossible.
In the thought experiment I said before, the rising object at tropical and lower mid latitudes would be pushed west for the same reason that someone who tries to walk from the interior to the perimeter of a running merry-go-round is "pushed backwards." In order to rotate once per 24 hours when you are a mile up in the sky, you need to be moving a little faster. If you do not push yourself faster, it will appear on the ground like you were "pushed backwards" which on earth is west.
As I said, at the equator, where the up/down-east/west Coriolis is maximum, it would be about a quarter mph for rising a mile. First of all, at a mile up you would not be able to resolve this drift in the balloon, especially when it is masked by random winds. On top of that, even if we could stop all wind and measure the balloon precisely with a telescope, the effect would die out quickly, because once the balloon is "pushed west" (to the person on the ground it appears this way), then the balloon is in a relative wind. We said there is no wind in this experiment, so if the balloon is moving west it experiences drag and so "slows down" (this "slowing down" as it appears to the person on the ground is really a "speeding up" eastward).
Again, this is the naive view. The plane is a machine that flies in the air. The globe model is a rotating earth with an atmosphere that is on average rotating with it, and "wind" is a difference between air speed and ground speed. You may find it counterintuitive, you may choose to reject it, that's fine. But standard Newtonian mechanics says that if the ground is moving from Los Angeles to Atlanta at about 850 mph, then the air above it more or less is too. A plane on the runway waiting to take off is moving that same speed. When it does take off, it does so into this "moving air" and that is what it flies in. So if there is no wind, the flight time is about the same in both directions. If there is significant wind, then one way is a bit faster than the other (the one with a "tail wind.")
No offense but I read paragraphs of mental gymnastics. As per the baloon floating up while the heavy aircraft is subjected to this invisible and selective pull and drag. A mosquito isn't affected but 747s are.
It doesn't need to be this complicated when dealing with straight up buoyancy and density. Exactly what my senses are experiencing.
Still not sure the answer to why a plane traveling east to west has the same travel time coming back when clearly according to the spin one way should be significantly faster but I digress.
Every culture believed the earth to be flat including the )ews and the Torah.
This changed when masons and Jesuits decided too.
Again I'll trust my senses, what the Bible states and every single culture proceeding us over a bunch of known scum.
OK, that's fine. I tried to give a relatively complete answer and maybe that was a mistake. The TLDR is that the rotation affects everything the same way, the helicopter, the jet, the balloon, the mosquito, everything. The effect is generally very small and completely dominated by other disturbances, most notably the wind. This is to say a balloon does not "float straight up" but is subject to the earth rotation as well, you just aren't able to see it.
The flat earth material always appeals to "buoyancy" and "density" but it never rigorously defines how these things behave so I'm not sure what to say. In conventional physics, they both have precise definitions, along with of course gravity. In fact, buoyancy is defined in terms of gravity and density (in a fluid medium).
Maybe my explanation was confusing, but there is no issue with the plane flight times being the same. The plane is flying some speed (e.g. 500 mph) in the air. The air is (very roughly) moving with the earth. Therefore the flight times east and west are the same (this is no longer true when there is significant winds).
Its easy when it comes to buoyancy and density. Anything heavier than air will sink and lighter than air will rise such as a helium balloon or smoke. No magical gravity that works on some things but not others...simple as...and remember its still considered the THEORY of gravity.
The plane traveling against the spin of the planet surely should take longer than the plane traveling with the spin..?
Does this not make logical sense?
Why? What causes that? The flat earth model implicitly assumes a preferred, "natural" direction of falling / down. Things fall in this direction, "down," because that is just the way that it is. Different densities then lead to the "sorting out" that we see, as the denser object is more likely to go down, and this phenomenon they call "buoyancy."
Yes, because you have instead a "magical" principle of "density and buoyancy," whereas conventional physics has "gravity." The only argument is that FE says their model is universal and gravity is not. This is pretty much the opposite as the truth. As I have repeatedly said, in conventional Newtonian (and relativistic) physics, gravity is universal. It does not "work on some things but not others" it is literally the most universal of the four forces. In conventional physics, "buoyancy" is a phenomenon that appears in certain circumstances due to gravity, density, and fluid mechanics. Also, the "end result" of buoyancy is not in fact universal, and there are demonstrations in which it is violated, sometimes in an unstable fashion and sometimes in a stable fashion.
As always.
It obviously makes sense to the FE crowd because they cite this over and over again. To me, this is so obvious that it led me to assume that FEers were all trolling, but I have decided that this is not true. I guess all I can say is this. If you are on a train car and pacing up and down the aisle of the car, does it take you longer to go from the back of the car to the front than from the front to the back? By the FE argument, it must take longer to walk forward in the car "against its motion" and it must be faster to walk to the back "traveling with the motion."
Of course, I have to assume you know that the answer is "no" because you have been on a train or subway or ferry and walked on it in both directions. So you are well aware that you are walking relative to the floor of the vessel and it takes you equal time to go in both directions. And before you say "yes, but we are talking about flying," I would ask the same question about flying an RC helicopter or drone up and down the train / ferry. As long as you are inside, the air is moving with you, no matter how fast you are going, and so the RC copter flies the same time in both directions (if you were outside and there was relative wind, again, this is not true).
This is why I keep telling you that it is actually conventional physics that is more universal and consistent. FE has to pretend that for some reason, traveling on "the spinning ball" is different than walking up and down a subway car. It isn't.