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.
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.
Density doesn't take any mental gymnastics to make sense opposed to the THEORY of gravity.
No one mentioned a train but a plane...
It makes zero sense that both travel times are the same on a surface that is supposedly spinning. 66,000 mph to boot lol...nice touch.
To say the plane is locked to the earth's spin is absolute nonsense in my mind.
The earth isn't moving, the ground isn't curving and its flat as the eyes can see and more. Tons of evidence and experiments support this.
Again, I'll trust my senses over liars any day