Is Earth Really Spinning Under Your Airplane?

easily understood modern-day scenario

that questions the widely accepted

belief that the Earth is a spinning

globe by examining one example in detail

we aim to present compelling evidence

that the Earth is in fact stationary

instead of briefly touching on multiple

contemporary examples that may lack

overall depth and impact we will

concentrate on one particular example

that clearly evidences the Earth’s fixed

and stationary nature our primary

objective is to cast significant doubt

on the credibility of the mainstream

narrative endorsed by NASA and the

conventional principles of flight

dynamics that posit the theory of a

rotating spherical Earth through this

detailed examination we aim to reveal

how easily the public continues to

accept official explanations without

substantial scrutiny we will refute

these commonly accepted explanations

highlighting their inherent flaws and

lack of plausibility when examined

closer in our analysis we will focus on

roundtrip flights between Atlanta

Georgia and San Diego California these

coast to coast flights typically cruise

at an average speed of 550 mph and have

an average flight duration of

approximately 3.45 hours assuming no

wind or turbulence 1900 m / 550 mph

equals 3.45 hours this should raise

obvious and critical questions at this

latitude considering that the Earth is

said to rotate west to east at 870 mph

beneath the plane during flight how do

flights in both directions report nearly

identical flight times in other words if

a plane flies at a constant speed of 550

mph between these two cities how can the

flight times be the same in both

directions given that the Earth is said

to rotate from west to east moving with

the plane in one direction and directly

against the plane in the other examining

closer on an eastbound flight from San

Diego to Atlanta the Earth’s rotation

moves in the same direction as the

aircraft conversely on a westbound

flight from Atlanta to San Diego the

Earth rotates in the opposite direction

to the aircraft’s travel these opposing

dynamics present significant challenges

that become apparent upon closer

examination in our first scenario when

heading east once our plane is airborne

and detached from the Earth’s surface it

leaves San Diego heading for Atlanta the

Earth is said to rotate eastward below

our flight with us at 870 mph while our

plane eventually reaches its own

independent cruising speed of 550

mph how then will our plane ever arrive

in Atlanta to clarify our plane’s

cruising speed of 550 mph is 320 mph

slower than the Earth’s rotational speed

of 870 mph beneath us during our flight

as the Earth’s direction of spin and our

plane are heading in the exact same

direction and latitude in our second

scenario as we begin our return flight

to San Diego from Atlanta the dynamics

change entirely further complicating the

official explanations as to why the

flight times in both directions are

almost identical once the aircraft lifts

off and disconnects from the Earth’s

surface San Diego is now approaching our

plane at a speed of 870 mph due to the

eastward spin of the Earth bringing San

Diego directly to us while

simultaneously directly approaching San

Diego our destination city at an

independent flight speed of 550 mph our

plane and San Diego are now closing in

on each other this should in reality

significantly reduce our flight time as

the two combined speeds effectively

create a far faster convergence speed of

1,420

mph the actual flight duration should

now be shortened to just 1.33 hours

rather than the actual 3.45 hours

observed daily for this specific flight

1,900 m / 1420 mph equals 1.33 hours the

fact that the actual daily flight times

between these two cities are almost

identical in both directions assuming no

wind or turbulence should clearly reveal

that the Earth does not rotate but

rather rests

the first counterargument within the

official narrative attempts to explain

the identical flight times between these

opposing scenarios by invoking the

principle of conservation of momentum a

fundamental concept in physics according

to this explanation when our plane flies

from San Diego to Atlanta it retains the

eastward spin imparted from the Earth’s

rotation at takeoff which is

approximately 870 mph at this latitude

the plane is then said to add its own

separate cruising speed of 550 mph to

this conserved momentum therefore the

plane’s total air speed is said to be a

combination of the 870 mph imparted by

the Earth’s rotation at takeoff and its

own cruising speed of 550 mph in effect

the plane is then alleged to be moving

at a total air speed of

1,420

mph 870 mph plus 550 mph equals 1,420

mph how does an airplane once airborne

and detached from the ground maintain

the momentum it is said to inherit from

the Earth’s rotation at takeoff during

its flight to Atlanta consider a

baseball being thrown from west to east

similar to an airplane does it continue

on its initial trajectory unchanged or

does it begin to arc towards the ground

due to gravity and air resistance almost

immediately conventional wisdom tells us

that a baseball will indeed begin arcing

downward would an airplane not be

subject to these same principles the

continuing argument to this states that

an airplane maintains its initial

velocity inherited from the earth’s

rotation at takeoff through continuous

propulsion from its engines which

counteracts any slowdown however we must

remember that once an airplane leaves

the ground it is no longer propelled by

the force of a spinning earth

additionally air resistance acting

against the plane increasing with speed

continually works against any initial

velocity boost provided by the Earth’s

rotation the net result is that once

airborne and disconnected from the

ground the airplane’s forward motion

relies solely on engine thrust to

maintain the required speed of travel

this is because any initial contribution

from the Earth’s rotation at takeoff is

soon negated by continual air resistance

to further support this it is important

to recognize that passengers on

commercial flights are never informed

that they are traveling at speeds

upwards of

a,420 mph to counteract the Earth’s

rapid rotation during some flights we

never hear relative motion mentioned or

referenced at any point past or present

concerning commercial flights the only

speed ever mentioned is the ground speed

which is typically around 550 mph or

slightly higher with a tailwind it

should be quite apparent that the plane

maintains an air speed and ground speed

of 550 mph in both directions which

supports the consistent flight times

observed for these daily flights

aligning perfectly with the scenario of

a non-rotating Earth beneath it a

stationary Earth logically explains

identical flight times in both

directions eliminating the need for the

adjustments and complex explanations

required for a spinning Earth in summary

the concept of conservation of momentum

proves ineffective in our scenario once

the plane becomes airborne although the

airplane would theoretically inherit an

initial burst of momentum from a

rotating Earth at takeoff this momentum

is quickly negated by air resistance and

gravity once airborne the plane operates

as an independent entity with external

forces continuously counteracting any

inherited momentum effectively

nullifying the predicted effects of the

conservation of momentum principle the

second common counterargument suggests

how gravity and friction cause earth’s

atmosphere to rotate in conjunction with

the earth this argument states that

airplanes are transported not only by

the previously mentioned conservation of

momentum but also by the air which is

itself influenced by earth’s rotation it

implies that the earth its atmosphere

and the airplane move together as a

single system according to this claim in

our scenario the airplane maintains the

870 mph speed it initially gains from

the Earth’s rotation thanks to

atmospheric cohesion this cohesion is

alleged to help the airplane preserve

and maintain the speed inherited from

the rotating Earth at takeoff

subsequently the airplane’s engines are

said to provide the additional thrust

needed to reach the higher speeds which

are required for progress towards

Atlanta for this theory to be valid it

must account for the scenario where an

airplane turns off its engines

mid-flight in such a case the airplane

would need to be significantly carried

along by the atmosphere thereby

supporting the claim of the atmosphere’s

significant role in this case however

common understanding tells us that much

like a thrown baseball an airplane in

this scenario would immediately begin to

descend this illustrates that

atmospheric drag does not significantly

influence its forward momentum to help

sustain its flight next the idea that

atmospheric drag a form of cohesion

could attach to and sustain the momentum

of a commercial airplane weighing

between 500,000 and a million pound by

dragging it along is beyond difficult to

accept

such theories and explanations seemingly

require us to disregard logic common

sense and reason to consider them

feasible the concept of atmospheric drag

is quite often compared to a boat being

carried by a river’s current however

this analogy quickly falls short upon

closer examination recognizing that

water has significant density and

cohesive properties that air simply does

not match given air’s considerably low

density and minimal cohesive potential

the idea that it can mimic the cohesive

behavior of water adhering to and

carrying along an extremely heavy

compact object like a commercial

airplane is fundamentally flawed to

demonstrate a valid example of

atmospheric drag consider the observable

phenomenon where a cigarette smoke

appears stationary and aligned inside a

moving car with closed windows and

inactive air vents this occurs because

both the air inside the car and the

cigarette smoke share similar properties

of density and buoyancy as a result when

the car moves the entire body of air

inside including the smoke moves

uniformly with it this is a valid

example of atmospheric drag now consider

a scenario where a ball is tossed upward

inside a moving car if the brakes are

abruptly applied while the ball is still

in midair the ball would trend forward

toward the dashboard or windshield this

phenomenon demonstrates that the

atmosphere inside the car does not

significantly adhere to the ball and

slow its forward momentum to match the

rapidly decelerating vehicle’s internal

atmosphere even if there is a slight

effect it is far too negligible to be

noticeable

this example with a ball illustrates

that low density air does not

substantially adhere to or considerably

affect denser objects this observation

directly challenges the notion that air

can adhere to a denser object such as an

airplane and significantly contribute to

dragging it along in a moving atmosphere

despite this evidence we are expected to

believe that an airplane with its

considerable density and weight can be

effectively carried along by atmospheric

drag maintaining the momentum acquired

from the Earth’s rotation at takeoff

while atmospheric drag might have a

brief effect it is not substantial

enough to significantly influence the

behavior in our airplane scenario thus

rendering it a negligible factor

it is surprising to see even prominent

highly intelligent individuals

attempting to justify atmospheric drag

and conservation of momentum as

plausible explanations for consistent

flight durations observed in our two

flight scenarios it would not be

surprising if quantum mechanics were

introduced at some point in the future

as yet another means to further perplex

and confuse us our tendency to readily

accept scientific explanations or

passively conform to official narratives

highlights an enduring pattern within

society revisiting the application of

AAM’s razor to our flight scenarios

reveals that the simplest explanation is

clearly a stationary non-rotating Earth

this model plausibly explains why

flights between the east and west coasts

have nearly identical times with no need

for complex explanations adjustments or

fixes required by a spinning Earth model

the official explanation from NASA and

the field of modern flight dynamics

attempting to account for these

identical flight times despite an

allegedly spinning Earth is entirely

untenable