Really just want a couple things clarified from both points of view. Some of the points brought up by the FE society are at least convincing enough for me to entertain the idea of the earth being flat. I'm not convinced either way since I don't yet have the familiarity/understanding with certain concepts or the resources prove any, this is going to take some time and research. What I ask is to be pointed in the right direction to resources to come to a solid conclusion.
Since I lack the resources/tools of the proper scale to observe the earth from a certain distance myself, I believe that the best way to come closer to verifying FE or RE theory myself would be through some type of equation to determine the following point below made by Dubay.
The most nagging point brought up was by Dubay: He states that if the world were spinning on its axis at around 1040 miles an hour, then why don't we "travel" certain distances just by increasing altitude, waiting for a period of time, and then landing without contrived aerial movement? The FE model seems to be a strong explanation at first, but I want to make sure I understand the round earth explanation as well
1.) After searching for quite awhile now on how this point is refuted by conventional wisdom, I still can't find the counter argument. Where can I find it? It doesn't even have to be a "counter-argument", just a way to explain how air travel isn't completely sabotaged by the rotating earth within conventional discourse since I'm sure the question has been asked beforehand. I'd imagine this phenomenon should have at least been addressed even before the FE society came about.
Is there some other type of force that prevents aircraft from disassociating from earth's gravity or is it gravity itself that keeps aircraft from leaving the same frame of reference?Maybe pilots already include the underlying spin in their calculations to come to a specific landing site. Don't know where to begin and how many variables are actually included
2.) Wouldn't it be convincing if there a way to validate Dubay's point by using Newtonian discourse? Even if Newtonian physics are rejected by the FE society, there should be a way of proving Dubay's point using said language
An explanation would be nice, but once again I'd be more than happy if I were just pointed in the right direction for resources to reference. Not afraid of dedicating the time to learning physics
Thank you