Is Earth Really Spinning Under Your Airplane?
This video takes a bold and focused approach to questioning the spinning globe narrative by examining one clear, everyday example: roundtrip flights between Atlanta and San Diego. Using simple math and observable reality, it challenges the mainstream belief that the Earth is rotating at 870 mph.
Here’s the issue: If the Earth is really spinning eastward at such a high speed, then flights going east (with the rotation) and west (against the rotation) should not take the same amount of time. Yet, in reality, they do — roughly 3.45 hours in both directions. This glaring contradiction is swept under the rug by official explanations, which rely on vague, unobservable principles like “conservation of momentum.”
The video points out the flaws in that argument. Once a plane leaves the ground, how can it maintain the Earth’s rotational speed? Air resistance, gravity, and engine thrust should logically override any “inherited” momentum. And if the atmosphere is supposedly rotating with the Earth, dragging planes along — how exactly does light, low-density air manage to push a 500,000+ pound plane? The comparison to a boat floating down a river falls flat when you realize air isn’t water.
The analysis even challenges the idea that planes are secretly flying at over 1,400 mph — something never mentioned by pilots or flight crews. Instead, the only speed consistently referenced is the airspeed or ground speed of 550 mph. Nothing more.
The conclusion is simple and powerful: the Earth is not spinning. The near-identical flight durations make far more sense on a stationary, flat Earth. This doesn’t require convoluted theories or imaginary forces — just observation, logic, and common sense.
Why complicate the truth when the simplest explanation — that the Earth is still and unmoving — fits the evidence right in front of us?
Transcript
Transcript
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