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.
How do the sun and moon stay in the air under the THEORY of density and buoyancy? Are they lighter than the air? Where does all the energy of the sun come from if it is lighter than air and smaller than the earth (FE maintains the sun is smaller than the earth)?
No one mentioned a train but a plane...
Same question in a plane. Does it take longer to walk one way in the aisle of the plane rather than the other? How about flying an RC helicopter on a plane? How about "hovering" an RC helicopter on a plane? Would such a "hovering" RC helicopter slam into the back of the plane at 500 miles per hour, maybe killing a flight attendant? If not, why is the "spinning ball" different than the plane (or train or ferry or bus).
It makes zero sense that both travel times are the same
There is no quantity of times you can say this that makes it be true. Eric Dubay and Dave Weiss can make those videos if they want. It's a free world out there. But no one smart is tricked by them.
that is supposedly spinning. 66,000 mph to boot lol
Much like the OP here, this is not correct. The equator spins around 1000 mph and it is a function of latitude (this isn't "magic changing spin," just look at a spinning ball, the speed is different across it). The 66,000 mph is the average orbital speed around the sun.
To say the plane is locked to the earth's spin is absolute nonsense in my mind.
This is the first accurate thing you have said. You are rejecting the theory, which is an opinion that you are expressing. You are welcome to reject the theory. But nevertheless, this is what conventional physics says, so this is its explanation for why the travel times are equal.
The earth isn't... eyes can see and more.
All opinions you are more than entitled to.
Tons of evidence and experiments support this.
No.
Again...
An opinion you are entitled to. Those liars do also say that the sky is blue, though. I guess you should start saying it is green. Have a great Memorial Day.
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
How do the sun and moon stay in the air under the THEORY of density and buoyancy? Are they lighter than the air? Where does all the energy of the sun come from if it is lighter than air and smaller than the earth (FE maintains the sun is smaller than the earth)?
Same question in a plane. Does it take longer to walk one way in the aisle of the plane rather than the other? How about flying an RC helicopter on a plane? How about "hovering" an RC helicopter on a plane? Would such a "hovering" RC helicopter slam into the back of the plane at 500 miles per hour, maybe killing a flight attendant? If not, why is the "spinning ball" different than the plane (or train or ferry or bus).
There is no quantity of times you can say this that makes it be true. Eric Dubay and Dave Weiss can make those videos if they want. It's a free world out there. But no one smart is tricked by them.
Much like the OP here, this is not correct. The equator spins around 1000 mph and it is a function of latitude (this isn't "magic changing spin," just look at a spinning ball, the speed is different across it). The 66,000 mph is the average orbital speed around the sun.
This is the first accurate thing you have said. You are rejecting the theory, which is an opinion that you are expressing. You are welcome to reject the theory. But nevertheless, this is what conventional physics says, so this is its explanation for why the travel times are equal.
All opinions you are more than entitled to.
No.
An opinion you are entitled to. Those liars do also say that the sky is blue, though. I guess you should start saying it is green. Have a great Memorial Day.