I'm not sede.
.
In fact, I don't know any FE'ers that are sede.
.
However, Dizzy IS a sede.
.
.
Myrna is a sede.
.
.
Globetards = sedes.

.
Sorry!  I forgot that you don't know what you are. I had held out such hope for you, but alas...
.
Better get your nose back to the grindstone, where it belongs. 
.

Here is a question for the flat earthers:

1) What are your interpretation of how we have different wind currents depending on the hemisphere...or quadrant, not sure of your nomenclature.  How does flat earth explain the Coriolis force and Hadley cell. 

The Coriolis effect:
Italian scientist Giovanni Battista Riccioli and his assistant Francesco Maria Grimaldi described the effect in connection with artillery in the 1651 Almagestum Novum, writing that rotation of the Earth should cause a cannonball fired to the north to deflect to the east.^[7] In 1674 Claude François Milliet Dechales described in his Cursus seu Mundus Mathematicus how the rotation of the earth should cause a deflection in the trajectories of both falling bodies and projectiles aimed toward one of the planet's poles. Riccioli, Grimaldi, and Dechales all described the effect as part of an argument against the heliocentric system of Copernicus. In other words, they argued that the Earth's rotation should create the effect, and so failure to detect the effect was evidence for an immobile Earth.^[8] The Coriolis acceleration equation was derived by Euler in 1749^[9][10] and the effect was described in the tidal equations of Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1778.^[11]
Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis published a paper in 1835 on the energy yield of machines with rotating parts, such as waterwheels.^[12] That paper considered the supplementary forces that are detected in a rotating frame of reference. Coriolis divided these supplementary forces into two categories. The second category contained a force that arises from the cross product of the angular velocity of a coordinate system and the projection of a particle's velocity into a plane perpendicular to the system's axis of rotation. Coriolis referred to this force as the "compound centrifugal force" due to its analogies with the centrifugal force already considered in category one.^[13][14] The effect was known in the early 20th century as the "acceleration of Coriolis",^[15] and by 1920 as "Coriolis force".^[16]
In 1856, William Ferrel proposed the existence of a circulation cell in the mid-latitudes with air being deflected by the Coriolis force to create the prevailing westerly winds.^[17]
The understanding of the kinematics of how exactly the rotation of the Earth affects airflow was partial at first.^[18] Late in the 19th century, the full extent of the large scale interaction of pressure gradient force and deflecting force that in the end causes air masses to move 'along' isobars was understood.

Giovanni Battista Riccioli and his assistant Francesco Maria Grimaldi were both Catholic Jesuit Priests.  Fr. Giovianni is known for his 126 arguments concerns the motion of the earth in Almagestum Novum.

So here is another Catholic priest that was a scientist that provided yet another pillar in the foundation of modern science.  If his equations couldn't be proved and repeated, he would have been laughed off.  There is much more written about him.  His was never condemned by the Church, nor were his works banned by the Church. Does the flat earth have counter equations for the Coriolis forces/acceleration/effects.

For that matter why would the vortex of draining water be different between the northern and southern hemisphere if the earth was flat?

You were right about the drain myth, mea culpa.

Michelson-Morley

You should read the entire link on them. You sited a single failed experiment conducted by two scientist.  The article elaborates on the things they did not take into account. Their calculations were corrected and was conducted repeatedly by other scientists.  A single failed experiment doesn't disprove the Coriolis Effect.

If the Coriolis Effect can accurately measure and predicts the different directions of winds on various latitudes, long range sniper shots, etc... why are we saying that it doesn't exist.  The people who are educated to use the equations understands how it works.  If the math is provable and solid, and you can truly replicate the results, how can you say it doesn't exist?

By providing something with greater explanatory power, explanatory scope, and less "ad hocness"
Don't hold your breath...

.
The Fra Mauro map of the world obviously attempts to depict the then-known land masses all on one page.
.
By later conceptions of the same region, the shape of the so-called world of Fra Mauro would appear as follows:
.

.
This is the 1827 Finley Map of the Eastern Hemisphere. . What a difference 368 years makes!
.
Comparing these two maps, it becomes clearly seen that numerous inaccuracies in the earlier map (below) have the effect of denying the vastness of the Indian Ocean. Fra Mauro has imagined scores of small islands around the perimeter of his "world" when no such islands exist in fact. He appears to have dreamed up numerous features with the compulsion to extend the kind of topography found in the Mediterranean so as to make the whole world one large Mediterranean-style place.
.

.
He's got Africa shrunken down and broken up with rivers, even throwing in a huge bay or quasi-sea on the western coast. There is no Madagascar, unless it's one of those tiny islands on the eastern coast of the broken Africa. Nor is there any Australia, nor prominent Indian peninsula. Sri Lanka could be any one of several such isles in that area, and the Philippines and Indonesia are entirely up for grabs. You can't recognize anything even remotely close to looking like it is Japan, so forget about it. 
.
All these errors and omissions are repaired in the later map by Finley, above, although it still needs a lot of improvement. Probably Finley's most significant contribution is the title, Eastern Hemisphere, instead of the whole world.
.

In FE model, there is no Coriolis Effect. The Michelson-Morley experiment proved this.
.

.
Once again, flat-tards demonstrate their ignorance. 
.
Experiments never "prove" anything. Experiments are not done to prove or disprove things.
.
That's not what experimentation is for.
.
Michelson-Morley experiment was very important, but as an experiment, it was not capable of proving anything.
.
Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a "scientific proof."
.
.
.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.  Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists.  The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.  All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence.  Proofs are not the currency of science.
.
Proofs have two features that do not exist in science:  They are final, and they are binary.  Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof).  Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem. (Examples include theorems in Geometry.)
.
In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final.  There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science.  The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives.  Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory.  No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final.  That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.
.
Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven).  There is nothing in between.  A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven.  These are the same as unproven.
.
In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories.  Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true.  They are always somewhere in between.  Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others.  There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others.  It is a matter of more or less, not either/or.  For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.
.
The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes.  Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists.  Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.
.
The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.”  What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven. (From Satoshi Kanazawa, the "scientific fundamentalist")
.

.

It's so funny how flat-earthers responded to the August eclipse. When I started asking the pertinent questions in April, none of them had any answers -- it's like they had to go regroup to come up with something to say. But then after May, June and July, they started to come up with some snide replies acting like they had all the answers. Problem is, they had to base their replies on falsehood and inaccuracies.
.

.

Ask me an eclipse question. I'll explain it.