The Coriolis Force

How the behavior of the atmosphere 

disproves geocentrism.

Ken Cole

Everyone is absolutely entitled to his own view of the universe, but if he tries to use science to outsmart the scientists he’s fighting a losing battle unless he can submit a new, valid proof. Much of the discussion of geocentrism falls into the realm of natural philosophy, the field that gave birth to science. But modern physics is proved with the language of logic – mathematics.

After reading some incredibly cogent objections to geocentrism (such as geosynchronous satellite objections), I decided to not regurgitate them. I only have a few questions left over for the geocentrists. How do they account for their inconsistent view of gravity? I’m not even concerned with what causes gravity, but just how it behaves. Whether it’s watching the path of a thrown ball tracing a parabola, or the fact that we use the same mechanical equations to send a satellite into orbit around Earth as we do to send one around Mars, the observable behavior of gravity remains consistent. Would they agree that less massive objects orbit around more massive objects, such as the moon orbiting the earth or the moons of Jupiter orbiting Jupiter? Now that we have determined and verified how massive the sun is (do they agree that’s the case?), why wouldn’t it follow that less massive bodies (earth, other planets, the asteroid belt, comets) orbit around the sun?

I’m a meteorologist and while I have an extensive background in physics, my expertise is in the atmosphere and atmospheric dynamics. As such I was greatly distressed by some comments regarding the Coriolis Force or Coriolis Effect (the apparent force resulting from the rotation of the earth). This issue is crucial to determining the earth’s rotation, and the Coriolis factor figures extensively in advanced atmospheric dynamics, such as Quasi-Geostrophic Theory. Before I proceed, I will define the apparent Coriolis acceleration:

C = - 2 W x V

Where C is the Coriolis acceleration vector, W is rotational velocity, x is the cross-product operator, and V is the velocity of an object moving with respect to rotation. The Coriolis Effect, of course, applies to any rotating reference frame (ie. a merry-go-round) in which an object moving in a linear path with respect to an inertial reference frame will, in the non-inertial rotation frame of reference, appear to be deflected 1) to the right if the rotation is counterclockwise or 2) to the left if the rotation is clockwise. There is also a vertical deflection, away from the earth’s surface, but that is probably beyond the scope of our discussion.

The same thing happens in the atmosphere when an air parcel accelerates from high pressure to low pressure, if the time or distance scale is long enough (ie. on the order of 1 day or a few thousand kilometers). As the parcel accelerates, it deflects to the right in the Northern Hemisphere. I will refer you to the website

http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/geos.rxml

for an elementary discussion of this phenomenon. I should note that the smallest-scale phenomenon this will begin to affect is a hurricane. It does not influence the rotation of smaller-scale circulations such as mesocyclones, tornadoes, or sink drains.

(For an in-depth proof of the above, look at either Holton (1992) or Bluestein (1993) Vol. I & II).

The Coriolis Effect is an indispensable consideration in atmospheric dynamics. I hope the above has cleared any confusion about what it is or what it does. Description of the movement of atmospheric mass would be impossible without the Coriolis Effect – it certainly exists, and so must the rotation of the earth.

Another problem involves static geocentrists suggesting that rotation of a celestial substance (“aether”) around the earth causes motion in the atmosphere, while the earth remains stationary. If that were true than the atmosphere on average should have a uniform angular velocity with increasing distance from the aether’s rotational (or to the average person, earth’s) axis. In effect the atmosphere would behave in the manner of a rotating solid body. This is analogous to tea spinning in a circular motion within a teacup. As you move away from the center of rotation, the tangential velocity of the tea increases.

The atmosphere should perform in a similar manner if the static-geocentrism theory is true:

1) Mean tangential wind speeds should generally increase as you move away from the earth’s surface by a factor of the (aether’s rotational velocity) times cos (angle of latitude). In fact, the effect should be enhanced, since friction at the earth’s surface should considerably reduced the atmospheric tangential velocity closer to the center of rotation. But instead wind speeds greatly vary with increasing altitude, suddenly increasing upon reaching the jet stream and then decreasing again above the jet stream. You can check this for yourself in daily sounding charts.

2) Upper-level wind speeds should be greatest at the equator, since the equator is farthest away from the center of rotation. If you check upper-level wind data you will find that the greatest upper-level wind speeds occur not at the equator but at the polar jet stream, which usually snakes across the Northern Hemisphere from about 30 to 50 degrees north latitude.

What actually happens, and what is accounted for in all numerical simulations of the atmosphere, is that the rotation of the earth imparts an angular momentum flux (among other fluxes) to the atmosphere, partially contributing to the motion of the atmosphere. The Conservation of Angular Momentum then applies to atmospheric mass. This principle is used in the formulation of the equations of motion, which form the basis of Numerical Weather Prediction that both analyzes the current state of the atmosphere and predicts the future states of the atmosphere. These numerical simulations are run continuously and reproducibly validate the adequateness of the dynamical theory.

The above has been an examination of some of the contradictions I have found in the geocentric standpoint. While I respect people’s right to advocate a geocentric view of the universe for theological reasons, I believe it is disingenuous to try and press science into supporting a geocentric view. I am welcome to any criticisms, but only as long as they find contradictions in my arguments or suggest something even better – something that’s systematic, consistent, and provable from a scientific standpoint.