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.
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, 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.
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 due to gravity and density. Also, 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.