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.
When it comes to the sun and moon, FE states they are the same size locked in a cosmic dance. The sun is the male energy leading consciousness while the feminine moon energy the subconscious. This is why eclipses are perfect because they are the same size
What's more believable that or the moon happens to be in the exact distance from the sun and to us, relative to the size and distance of the sun...
u are expected to believe that its all by chance..or they're both the same size.
Simple as
As for our opinions on the other matters...to each their own I say.
Just try to stay opened minded for I was u in this argument just a couple of years ago. ✌️
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.
When it comes to the sun and moon, FE states they are the same size locked in a cosmic dance. The sun is the male energy leading consciousness while the feminine moon energy the subconscious. This is why eclipses are perfect because they are the same size
What's more believable that or the moon happens to be in the exact distance from the sun and to us, relative to the size and distance of the sun... u are expected to believe that its all by chance..or they're both the same size.
Simple as
As for our opinions on the other matters...to each their own I say.
Just try to stay opened minded for I was u in this argument just a couple of years ago. ✌️