Let's end this smart guy, before you blow a gasket. You're losing your marbles. If you don't agree with this, which everybody does I've ever interacted with, then you must have some type of comprehension disability. ) We'll use the United States and Western Europe as our reference point. The earth is said to be spinning somewhere between 700-800 MPH in these latitudes. Right? So we'll just have fun with the average 750 MPH.

Next we're told that the "atmosphere" is magically velcroed to the surface of the earth and that they are both moving together in unison. Right?

As redonkulous as both of these nonsensical ideas are, I'll assume they're true for the following proof that ends the globe THEORY.

We now have an "atmosphere" moving 750 MPH, West to East. Thus, it would be absolutely impossible to fly an airplane from NY to LA against a 750 MPH headwind. Not only would that take enormous amounts of fuel and power, but the airframe of any modern jet could not withstand those forces. Add to that, the plane would have to be traveling greater than 750 MPH to even get off the ground headed in this direction. And as we both know, the top speed of commercial jets at 30,000+ feet is at most around 550 MPH. That's 200 MPH short of gaining any distance against the 750 MPH rotating earth and it's velcro'ed atmosphere.

If you try to argue that the atmosphere isn't glued to the globe and is stationary in comparison to the 750 MPH spin, then you've got a new problem. I should be able to float up in a hot air balloon in NY and just wait a couple hours for LA (or SF) to just spin right under my hovering baloon. Either that or, it would be impossible to travel from LA to NY as the spinning globe underneath you is moving 200+ MPH faster, west to east, then you can fly at top speed in a commercial jet. You could never catch up with the globe. And likewise, you should be able to fly from NY to LA in less than 2 hours as you would pick up 1500 miles alone in 2 hours from the rotation.

Either one or the other is true - moving or non-moving atmosphere. Either way, one of the two scenarios cannot be justified.

You can't make sense of it man. I suppose you could try all you want. But I've shut down more globers with this argument alone. They've got no comebacks.

But as passionate as you are about defending the globe, I'm sure you'll try.

So please, make a sensible argument opposing the above scenario(s). I'm all ears. Waiting to be enlightened. How do you explain this most obvious problem?

Let's end this smart guy, before you blow a gasket. You're losing your marbles. If you don't agree with this, which everybody does I've ever interacted with, then you must have some type of comprehension disability. ) We'll use the United States and Western Europe as our reference point. The earth is said to be spinning somewhere between 700-800 MPH in these latitudes. Right? So we'll just have fun with the average 750 MPH.

Next we're told that the "atmosphere" is magically velcroed to the surface of the earth and that they are both moving together in unison. Right?

As redonkulous as both of these nonsensical ideas are, I'll assume they're true for the following proof that ends the globe THEORY.

We now have an "atmosphere" moving 750 MPH, West to East. Thus, it would be absolutely impossible to fly an airplane from NY to LA against a 750 MPH headwind. Not only would that take enormous amounts of fuel and power, but the airframe of any modern jet could not withstand those forces. Add to that, the plane would have to be traveling greater than 750 MPH to even get off the ground headed in this direction. And as we both know, the top speed of commercial jets at 30,000+ feet is at most around 550 MPH. That's 200 MPH short of gaining any distance against the 750 MPH rotating earth and it's velcro'ed atmosphere.

If you try to argue that the atmosphere isn't glued to the globe and is stationary in comparison to the 750 MPH spin, then you've got a new problem. I should be able to float up in a hot air balloon in NY and just wait a couple hours for LA (or SF) to just spin right under my hovering baloon.

Either one or the other is true - moving or non-moving atmosphere. Either way, one of the two scenarios cannot be justified.

You can't make sense of it man. I suppose you could try all you want. But I've shut down more globers with this argument alone. They've got no comebacks.

But as passionate as you are about defending the globe, I'm sure you'll try.

So please, make a sensible argument opposing the above scenario(s). I'm all ears. Waiting to be enlightened. How do you explain this most obvious problem?