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"?

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 contradictory to and cannot be explained by the globe model? I mean, is that honestly your understanding of the so called "spinning ball"?

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 dispute "the spinning ball" 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 contradictory to and cannot be explained by the globe model? I mean, is that honestly your understanding of the so called "spinning ball"?

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 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. There is nothing mysterious about this in the globe model.

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 dispute "the spinning ball" 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 contradictory to and cannot be explained by the globe model? I mean, is that honestly your understanding of the so called "spinning ball"?

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 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. There is nothing mysterious about this in the globe model.

I gotta say, I really try to remain open to the flat earth and other "globe rejecting" people. 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 dispute "the spinning ball" 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 contradictory to and cannot be explained by the globe model? I mean, is that honestly your understanding of the so called "spinning ball"?

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 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.

I gotta say, I really try to remain open to the flat earth and other "globe rejecting" people. 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 dispute "the spinning ball" 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 contradictory to and cannot be explained by the globe model? I mean, is that honestly your understanding of the so called "spinning ball"?