Explain in a flat earth, how the Coriolis Effect works?

I just explained the diffrent types of logic we use.

I have had various posts where people have tryed to prove me wrong with 'FE logic'

And yes, RE and FE do think diffrently, thats why I call it diffrent types of logic.

RE are a more sensible people, while FE are more paranoid and uneducated

aswell as not willing to listen to reason without shooting off their mouths about something either completly irrelevent or ludacris (ex. the FE conspiracy theory)

I do not believe the FE people use any type pf legitimate logic,

If you were being sarcastic, then you still have no proof from a written primary source that is trustworthy, and I suggest you work on getting it.

Quote

I just explained the diffrent types of logic we use.

No, you didn't.

Yes i did.

Quote

I have had various posts where people have tryed to prove me wrong with 'FE logic'

Cite me these posts, along with what you think their "FE logic" constituted.

Find them yourself.

Quote

And yes, RE and FE do think diffrently, thats why I call it diffrent types of logic.

Virtually everyone thinks in a seperate manner than everyone else; that's why we don't all arrive at the same conclusions given the same information, but we all use the same types of logic.

I just explained how FE people dont think properly, and its probably in their best interest to go back on their medication.

Quote

RE are a more sensible people, while FE are more paranoid and uneducated

Really!?! Taking you as a REer and virtually any FEer, or anyone who even argues FE on a regular basis, I find this claim ridiculous.

How so?

Quote

aswell as not willing to listen to reason without shooting off their mouths about something either completly irrelevent or ludacris (ex. the FE conspiracy theory)

And you're qualified to guage what is irrelevant or a really bad rapper with bad teeth because...?

Typo:Ludicrous

Quote

I do not believe the FE people use any type pf legitimate logic,

That's because you're an idiot.

Your an idiot.

Quote

If you were being sarcastic, then you still have no proof from a written primary source that is trustworthy, and I suggest you work on getting it.

*sigh*
I don't even need any primary source; your own experiment disproved your hypothesis.  However, had you done the bare minimum of research (even wikipedia qualifies) you would have been able to predict the results regardless.

"If you look at the Encyclopedia Britannica, you can be fairly sure that somebody writing an article is an acknowledged expert in that field, and you can take his or her words as being at least a scholarly point of view." The Brittanica isn't immune from error, but an "encyclopedia" anyone can edit doesn't stir trust in my heart. The "reforms" proposed by Wikipedia--requiring registration before adding articles--are rather thin, given that any anonymous person can edit the articles.

wikipedia cant be acknowledged as a real encyclopedia

an "encyclopedia" anyone can edit doesn't stir trust in my heart. The "reforms" proposed by Wikipedia--requiring registration before adding articles--are rather thin, given that any anonymous person can edit the articles.

First of all I would like to start off with saying that it is posts like thse, immature rebuttles with no actualy body to them, that destroy forums and decimate the faith of fellow users, like myself, in ever getting a 'straight' answer from users like 6strings. Therefore I am going to have to resort to using his own basis of answering questions in my rebuttle.

I just explained how FE people dont think properly, and its probably in their best interest to go back on their medication.

Quote

First of all I would like to start off with saying that it is posts like thse, immature rebuttles with no actualy body to them, that destroy forums and decimate the faith of fellow users, like myself, in ever getting a 'straight' answer from users like 6strings. Therefore I am going to have to resort to using his own basis of answering questions in my rebuttle.

Alright, I'll concede that my post may have been fairly terse and derogatory.  I apologize for its terseness, it's just that I've explained this very subject to you umpteen times in the past 24 hours, and have, frankly, tired of doing so.

By saying this you ae stating that your posts have made any attept at explaining my questions, with nothing other then childish jokes or remarks. You have been explaining the same 'explination' using nothing that would make me, or other REers believe you.

To address your belief that you have conclusively shown that REers and FEers use different systems of logic; they do not.  We all agree that if a conclusion follows from its premises, and the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.

If FEers followd the same path of logic that REers used, wouldn't the be REers aswell?

I would also like you to cite examples wherein you have done battle with this elusive "FE logic", otherwise I am forced to believe that you don't understand that logic is simply a formalized system of thought.

Quote

I just explained how FE people dont think properly, and its probably in their best interest to go back on their medication.

Most FEers, or those you accuse of being FEers, because you have yet to argue with any true FEers, think with startling clarity, much moreso than you have demonstrated up to this point.

Haven't I? Aren't you a 'true' FEer?

In short; FEers are not the insane wackjobs who don't subscribe to logic that you think they are; notice how no one else has had a problem with "FE logic"?  There's a word for people who think that they're the only ones that are sane, mate, and it isn't 'sane'.

If FEers followd the same path of logic that REers used, wouldn't the be REers aswell?

Quote from: "Luke_smith64"

If FEers followd the same path of logic that REers used, wouldn't the be REers aswell?

No.  Logic is not what you think it is.  Logic has nothing to do with facts or beliefs.

Did i say it has to do with facts or beliefs? Don't you think it'd be more logical for them to just believe in a RE

p.s. please do not insert your responses inside quotes.  That's... really annoying.

I'm good, thanks.

[...] But there's no controversy surrounding the Coriolis effect; the only people disagree are those who, like Luke, are simply misinformed.

Wait, hold on! So you actually think there's a Coriolis effect?

I mean, if you believe in that, you believe in a RE because the effect can't apply on a FE.

I suggest you to travel to the Southern Hemisphere and feel the Coriolis effect on your own body,

Quote from: "Theissen"

Wait, hold on! So you actually think there's a Coriolis effect?

Well, I believe in calculus, so I guess I have no choice but to believe in the Coriolis force, which is by no means a mysterious natural phenomenon but is simply the result of looking at motion from a certain viewpoint.

Quote

I mean, if you believe in that, you believe in a RE because the effect can't apply on a FE.

Not really.  The Coriolis force is not a physical force; it has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.

Quote

I suggest you to travel to the Southern Hemisphere and feel the Coriolis effect on your own body,

What?

What?

Quote from: "Theissen"

Wait, hold on! So you actually think there's a Coriolis effect?

Well, I believe in calculus, so I guess I have no choice but to believe in the Coriolis force, which is by no means a mysterious natural phenomenon but is simply the result of looking at motion from a certain viewpoint.

Quote

I mean, if you believe in that, you believe in a RE because the effect can't apply on a FE.

Not really.  The Coriolis force is not a physical force; it has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.

Quote

I suggest you to travel to the Southern Hemisphere and feel the Coriolis effect on your own body,

What?

The Coriolis effect has everything to do with the shape of the Earth. Well, the shape and the spin of the Earth. It wouldn't exist the way it does IF they Earth was flat.

Quote from: "Theissen"

The Coriolis effect has everything to do with the shape of the Earth. Well, the shape and the spin of the Earth. It wouldn't exist the way it does IF they Earth was flat.

I see.  You are referring to the Coriolis effect as it pertains to weather systems.  In fact, the Coriolis force is more general than that and applies to motion in any rotating system, regardless of the shape of that system.  This fact is discussed extensively on these forums, and probably quite a bit in this very thread.

Whether the Earth is flat or not has little to do with whether there is a Coriolis force acting on weather systems; the shape of the Earth will only change the way in which such a force varies with latitude.

Additionally, if I were to go and experience wind, as you say, it would be illogical in the extreme for me to conclude that it must be the Coriolis force causing the wind, even if the wind is incredibly powerful.  I may be very impressed by the strength of the wind, but I realize it does not add to the strength of your argument.

I have no idea where you are leading to with this, it just seems like you talk you way out of it rather than disproving it. I'm not going to respond to this since it's not the direction/purpose of this thread. Keep it on-topic.