The first and the main reason that make me take the theory of flat earth seriously is that a helicopter or plane don't rise and fall in a diferent place on the earth without moving .
(According to a rotating earth if a helicopter goes up let's say for two hours it should land very far from the place it take-off)
I didnt find a single logical explanation to that in a rotating globe
And plz for god sake don't say that it is the galilian reference or that the atmosphere is moving with the earth because that's obviously wrong
That isn't taking RE seriously.
If you jump in a moving train do you end up really far from where you jumped, or do you land in roughly the same spot?
Objects have this property called inertia. This means that if they are in motion they will continue in motion.
As the helicopter takes off, it keeps its inertia and keeps moving with Earth, gravity and its lift allows it to maintain a circular path.
The atmosphere is moving with Earth. What makes you say that is obviously wrong?
Why do you say the atmosphere is not moving with the earth?
Then if the plane is moving against the rotation of the earth it will face a huge resistance that should be calculated but it is not the case even round earth believer know that
Again, you are misrepresenting it.
The plane is not really going against the rotation of Earth. It is going with it, just slightly slower.
Using the equator as an example for the often quoted 1000 miles per hour, a plane apparently going west at 500 miles per hour is really going east at 500 miles per hour while Earth and the air rotates at 1000 miles per hour.
A plane apparently going east at 500 miles per hour is actually going east at 1500 miles per hour while the Earth and the air rotates at 1000 miles per hour.
In both cases, the relative speed of the plane to the air (which dictates the resistance felt) is 500 miles per hour.
Again, you moving relative to other things is an example. Do you have issues walking to the back and front of a train or plane? No. This is because you are moving relative to it, just like the plane is moving relative to Earth.
So no, people who are educated and accept the round Earth or who just honestly and rationally analyse it see there is no problem with it.
It seems that the example you made couldnt help you to understand the case
I ll give the one given by marta by using a toy of remoted hylicopter in a convertible moving car , rise the helycopter up verticaly . Will it follow the car in same direction and vilocity for a long distance .
The answer of course is NO
No. That is because it leaves the "atmosphere" of the car and enters the atmosphere of Earth which is moving relative to the car.
Ignoring the wind, the atmosphere of Earth is stationary relative to Earth and it isn't sitting in another atmosphere but instead in the vacuum of space.
The hylocopter i mentionned in the first is steady means has only one pushing force to keep him separated from the earth , when it take off according to RET it has the speed of earth this cinetic energy starts to decrease when taking off, until zero due to the resistance of air like what you said this will left no cinetic energy to the hylicopter except the energy that we gave to push it verticaly away of the earth.
There is no other existant force to add to keep it moves with the earth in the same speed i explain that in detailled way or you want the forces representation schemas.
And like what you said ''excatly it's a simple stuff'' but you are making it complicated
The air resistance provides a force to make the speed of the object relative to the air 0.
This means even if you take a stationary object and expose it to moving air, the air will cause it to move.
This is often known as wind.
The atmosphere on Earth won't make the helicopter stationary relative to some absolute frame of reference. It will try to make it stationary relative to it, i.e. rotating with Earth.
Wind resistance will cause it to move with Earth.
You said
The air isn't going to slow the helicopter down because it moves with the Earth.
Sorry but you are absolutely wrong
The air will slow and resist anything moving in the air. Please dont ask me to prove that .
I won't ask you do. I will demand it.
How does air cause things to come to a complete stop in an absolute reference frame rather than merely cause it to move at the same speed as the air.
When providing your answer make sure you include wind which causes apparently still objects to move.
The air will only act to slow the helicopter down relative to it. That means it will make the helicopter move with it.
Yes the hylicopter on my car , will it follow my car in a straight path after taking off?, for few metters yes because it has the speed of my car but it will stop unless i move it manually to follow the car . Hope it's clear now.
Keep it in your car, an enclosed car so the air inside is moving with the car and keep your car moving in a straight line.
How does the helicopter go then?
We are making a simulation of the earth and the hylicopter by a car and a hylicopter toy so you can not eliminate the resistance of the air because it exists , sorry to disapoint you .
The issue is you inventing wind resistance which isn't there for the Earth.
Your car is moving relative to the atmosphere of Earth. Excluding the minor wind, the atmosphere of Earth is stationary relative to Earth.
An other proof : if we are flying from point A to point B noting that the sense of earth rotation is from A to B why then it takes the same speed and time to fly by plane from A to B or B to A
All the proofs end to one result : it's stationary . Just be rational it could not be simpler than that.
No. All the matters is the relative speed.
Lets just assume that A and B are 100 km apart.
If Earth is stationary:
You travel to B at a speed of 100 km/hr, and reach it after 1 hour.
You travel back to A at a speed of 100 km/hr, and reach it after 1 hour.
Now if Earth is moving, at a speed of 1000 km/hr, in the same direction as A->B (to the east):
You travel towards B at a speed of 100 km/hr relative to Earth. This means your actual speed is 1100 km/hr.
At the same time both A and B are moving in the same direction at 1000 km/hr (with Earth).
This means after 1 hour, A, which starts at 0 is now 1000 km east. B, which started at a position of 100 km east is now at 1100 km east (1000+100).
You started off at 0, and travelled at 1100 km/hr for an hour and are now at 1100 km east, right where B is.
Now travelling back, you head off at a speed of 100 km/hr relative to Earth in the opposite direction. That means your speed is now 900 km/hr to the east.
This means after the hour you will be at a position of 2000 km east (1100 + 900).
At the same time, A has moved an extra 1000 km/hr east and ended up at 2000 km east, right where you are.
Notice how it works out exactly the same for a stationary Earth and just you moving and a moving Earth with you moving relative to it?
Again, the same applies to a train.
If you walk on a train from the back to the front and then back to the back, it will take the same time, regardless of how fast the train is moving. So does that mean trains are always stationary?
first you are alking to a teacher of math at the university specialist in space integrations.
the atmospher is composed by O N H and you should know that GAZS cant carry objects only liquid and solid objects can do
Perhaps you should try learning physics instead of math.
Gasses can carry objects. That is how planes and helicopters fly. It is also why hurricanes and the like are so devastating.
It is how an internal combustion engine works.
i was saying that if you add to the rotation of the earth arond its self 1,000 miles per hour the rotation around the sun 18.5 miles/sec and speed of the galaxy through space (828,000 kilometers per hour) all this mess should blow any abject above the earth.
i can't imagine a world resists and stays steady to all those movements but it distroy in a week earthquake above 4 richter .
Why should it blow anything up?
Do you know why Earthquakes are so devastating? Because parts of Earth move relative to other parts.
The acceleration from our rotation is basically nothing and only really observed for large scale systems, like orbiting satellites and large scale weather systems.
The other parts are all pretty much experienced together. Why would it destroy anything?