Ah, but this is explained by the magic of "gravity".  This amazing force drags the plane and the entire atmosphere around the globe as if it were attached by an iron rod even when it's 30,000 feet up.  But, then, of course, the small flap of a butterfly's wings can allow it to move westward with no more difficulty thant it moves eastward.  If gravity were that powerful a force that it dragged things around at 1,000 MPH, then in order for this butterfly to move westward, that should prove to be more difficult than what a salmon has to do swimming upstream.  But there's no difference in exertion whether it's floating east or floating west.  In fact, it has no sense of direction based on any difference in the required exertion.  Then there are flights from North going SouthWest.  Not only does the plane have to fly south, it has to counteract this iron-grip pull of the earth toward East.  Or if a plane were to fly from the North Pole to the equator due south, at the North Pole, the earth is only rotating in at an extremely slow pace.  But then as it flew south, the speed of the movement of the surface underneath would increase, and the angular momentum of the plane and the exertion required to counteract the force would have to constantly increase.  Does a pilot have to increase the engine throttle as he moves south and the pull of gravity causes it to move eastward at an ever-faster pace?

It's utterly absurd.

Now, technically, this speaks more to a stationary earth than a flat earth per se.

Michelson-Morley and Airy's Failure also proved that the planet is not rotating but rather that the starts revolve around it.

I'm not FE or Stationary Earth, but am finding some of the arguments worth investigating.  I never gave them any credibility before, but some of it is making sense, and I'm willing to give it a fair consideration.

Many of the flat-earth proponents on CI wait for a "Great Monarch", while ridiculing the insignia of a thousand years of real great Catholic Monarchs, during the Holy Roman Empire.

Why would the Lord want to hear you?

What in the heck are you blathering on about?

What do the Great Monarch, a thousand years of Catholic Monarchs, or the Holy Roman Empire, have to do with Flat Earth?

Enlighten us, because no one but you has a clue what you're talking about.

What in the heck are you blathering on about?

What do the Great Monarch, a thousand years of Catholic Monarchs, or the Holy Roman Empire, have to do with Flat Earth?

Enlighten us, because no one but you has a clue what you're talking about.

I think he's talking about the symbol of kingship, the globe with the cross on top, but it's perfectly compatible with the FE model of the earth with firmament on top.  DL posted a picture that looks more like the firmament model than the solid globe model.  In any case, that symbol is compatible with both models.  Besides that, the symbol doesn't necessarily mean what he's implying.  Not every Catholic Monarch had kingship over the entire world.  So I think there's some question regarding what that symbol even means.

So, yes, absolutely this is no "proof" of anything.  This was actually Nishant's "go-to" proof of globe earth ... and it's already been debunked several times now.  Nishant tended to do most of his theology from private revelation and Catholic art.

Even IF there were a symbol of a globe in Catholic art, that's not exactly tantamount to Catholic teaching anyway.  As we saw on a different thread, some early Christian art depicted Our Lord without a beard.

This is one of the things that pushed me towards Flat Earth. The whole globe earth-spinning 1000 MPH-gravity model just doesn't work in reality.

Your example of the butterfly is a slam-dunk, in my opinion. The bit about air molecules at 100 feet, 1000 feet, and 10,000 feet and 100,000 feet all being connected to the earth below as with an iron rod -- that's exactly what they teach, and it's insane in my opinion. It is heavy brainwashing (like "wear a mask to stay safe") but it has no bearing on reality, once you look into it. It has ZERO science and all religion.

Well, I don't need their religion. I have the Catholic Faith, thankyouverymuch.

Right, this technically speaks toward whether the earth is in motion or not, more than Flat Earth per se, but it's part and parcel of the "Modern Science" view of the cosmos.

Between simple common sense, such as the butterfly example, and then scientific experiments such as Michelson-Morley and Airy, it's pretty clear that the earth is not moving.  Oh, and to add to this, the centrifugal force of a moving earth should be greater at the equator than at the "poles", and so things should weigh slightly less at the equator than at the poles.  But experiments have actually shown no difference.  Airplanes actually travel slightly quicker moving West to East, than from East to West.  But that should be the opposite, as planes SHOULD be forced to overcome that massive gravity that drags everything around it as if it were attached to the earth by an iron rod.  As planes move from East to West, it should be like salmon swimming upstream, and planes should use a ton more fuel going in that direction than from West to East.

Another interesting tidbit is the RedBull jump.  So the guy took 2.5 hours to get up to his 120,000 foot altitude.  In 2.5 hours, the earth, given his latitude, should have rotated 2,000 miles.  And were he not attached by "gravity" to the globe, he should have ended up 2,000 miles West, in the Pacific Ocean.  But he landed 40 miles to the East.  So theoretically this powerful force of gravity dragged him 2,000 miles along with it.  That kind of a force should require significant effort to overcome when travelling West, but no such additional force, engine power, fuel, etc. is required when moving West.

That's just simple physics.  If there's a force dragging things along at 1,000 MPH to the East, then there needs to be an Equal and Opposite force required to overcome that.  No such force is known to be required.  That would be IN ADDITION to the force required to propel the plane 500MPH or so toward the West as it travels in that direction.  So to travel East, the plane would be required to create enough thrust to ADD 500MPH to the rotation.  But going West, it would have to add enough thrust to achieve that 500MPH delta and then also overcome gravity that allegedly drags it 1000MPH in the other direction.

In effect, the plane would have to muster thrust that would be the equivalent of travelling 1500MPH to the West, and planes don't have that kind of power, nor is there any indication that they need to apply more thrust or use more fuel when travelling West.

Oh, and if you're going West, you'd be fighting against winds that are travelling in excess of 1,000 MPH toward the East.  So you'd be flying into 1,000 MPH winds, over 3 times faster than the highest windspeeds ever recorded in a tornado.

None of this adds up.  There's no way the earth is rotating.

Yes, it's like they want to have their Gravity and eat it too. They have to pick.

The reality of Air travel really throws a monkey wrench in their Globe system.

Gravity can't be an inexhorable, super powerful force sometimes, and gentle/forgiving at other times, depending on its "mood". That's not how natural forces work! Natural forces have no "moods".

Yes, and there's also the well-known pesky problem of having to correct downward flying around the globe.  If a plane is travelling 500 miles per hour, so about 8 miles per minute, it would have to correct down over 2,000 feet per minute.  Someone looked at the fastest plane in existence and discovered that it would have to correct down by 16,000 feet per minute to avoid increasing altitude over a globe.  There's a great interview with a retired F-16 pilot who's firm about flat earth.  In addition to this, he states that their tactics and targetting systems could not work on a globe.

There's also that pesky problem that if the earth were flat, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now. :-)

Seriously, Laddy, what you said has been debunked many times, including on this site, and you're aware of that.

Why do you say this stuff? It's not only inconsiderate, but inaccurate.   

naccurate how?

What was proven debunked?