Flat-Earthers and the Coriolis Effect Once Again

I have previously discussed how flat-earthers misunderstand the Coriolis effect. Alas, the situation has not improved. John Stunja—who on the internet goes by the name Quantum Eraser, or QE for short—fancies himself an expert on all sorts of topics and has become a leader in the flat-earth movement. Last year I discussed John’s misunderstanding of the philosophy of science that many other flat-earthers have adopted. In an earlier discussion of how flat-earthers incorrectly understand science, I mentioned Nathan Oakley, one of John’s associates, though I didn’t mention Nathan’s last name then. In some of his many online lessons, John has also misled many flat-earthers through his teachings on the Coriolis effect. Here is a recent podcast in which he discussed the Coriolis effect once again.1 His presentation began after 48 minutes and lasted a little over a half hour. I’ll do a little analysis here.

John began by asking how the Coriolis effect can exist when the necessary condition for it is two separate reference frames, one non-inertial (the earth), and the other inertial (the atmosphere and everything in it). Right away, he has completely misrepresented the situation. The atmosphere sensibly rotates with the earth, so the earth and its atmosphere represent a single non-inertial reference frame; therefore, the atmosphere is not an inertial reference frame. John has been making this blunder for a very long time, and it demonstrates that he doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about.

John has been making this blunder for a very long time, and it demonstrates that he doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about.

John went on to say that from the nature of gases, if the earth were spinning, the atmosphere would not spin with it. Apparently, he is unaware that viscosity exists within fluids (which include gases and liquids). Suppose God created the earth as a spinning ball held together by gravity (the globe-earth view) surrounded by an atmosphere that was not spinning with the earth. Since the earth was spinning and its atmosphere was not spinning, there would have been a worldwide wind from east to west having speeds of zero mph at the poles and a little more than 1,000 mph at the equator. Can anyone guess what would have happened next? Though it would not happen instantly, viscosity (friction) between the air and the ground and in-between the various layers of the atmosphere would have soon caused the atmosphere to sensibly spin with the earth, resulting in the world we have today. Similarly, viscosity causes the gas around a spinning ball in the air to share in the spinning ball’s motion. It is this effect, combined with the translational motion of a ball, that causes golf balls with back spin to rise, baseballs to curve, and tennis balls and table tennis balls with top spin to drop. If John knew half as much about fluids as he thinks he does, he would know this. I am tired of this false argument.

Same Problem, Flat or Not

But John wasn’t finished. He asked how gas particles that move randomly and at high speeds can rotate in unison with the earth. It doesn’t seem to occur to John that the same sort of question could be asked about a flat earth: How could gas particles that move randomly and at high speeds stay at rest with respect to a flat, stationary earth? When there is no wind, such as on a calm night, the air doesn’t seem to be moving with respect to the earth, even on a flat earth. If John can figure out the answer to that question about the stationary flat earth, the same answer would apply to a rotating globe earth as well.

At around 52 minutes, John asked, “Please explain the existences of east/north/south surface/mid/high level winds on a spinning ball that has the atmosphere rotating with it from west to east.”

Once again, John failed to apply the same logic to a flat earth. If air can move locally (wind) with respect to a stationary flat earth, then air can move locally with respect to a rotating globe earth too.

John then had a bonus question. “How can you have different wind speeds moving in different directions simultaneously at differing elevations of the atmosphere, all the while the atmosphere is collectively spinning east, in unison with the earth?”

John does not realize that viscosity will not allow the earth’s atmosphere to remain motionless while the earth spins.

Again, John does not realize that viscosity will not allow the earth’s atmosphere to remain motionless while the earth spins. As for different motions of the air at different elevations, if this is a problem for a spinning globe, then it also is a problem for a flat, stationary earth. If John could figure out how different wind speeds at different elevations can exist on a flat, stationary earth, then he’d have the answer to his bonus question.

Next, around 54 minutes, John pointed out that if the atmosphere spins with the earth, then the air at progressively high elevations must move more quickly. This is correct, but let’s check out how much faster it must move. Let’s be generous and consider an elevation of 10 miles, effectively including all the troposphere. Let’s also assume for simplicity that the earth’s circumference is 25,000 miles. Checking the math, the circumference of the top of the troposphere around the equator has a circumference of 25,063 miles. That is a difference of 0.25%, meaning that on a spinning globe, the air 10 miles above the equator is moving 0.25% faster than the air on the equator. Does anyone think that this difference in rotation speed from top to bottom would be that significant over an elevation change of 10 miles, particularly when one considers the various wind velocities at different elevations? John obviously never bothers to check out the numbers for his absurd claims.

Conservation Principles

Around 56 minutes, John took on angular momentum. He put up a quote about conservation principles in mechanics only applying in isolated systems where there are no external forces acting. John then put up another quote saying there aren’t really any isolated systems. If one were to apply this standard consistently, then conservation principles can never be used in mechanics. John concluded that since the earth is not an isolated system, angular momentum is not conserved, and thus angular momentum cannot be used to explain the Coriolis effect. It never occurs to John to ask why physicists would make up a system of study (physics) that is of absolutely no use in describing the world. If John were to dig a little deeper into his quote mining, he would find that the same sources likely stated that if outside forces are very small, those forces can be ignored, and what we predict based upon no outside forces agrees with reality to a very high degree. Often the disagreement between the prediction and reality are so small that we cannot detect the difference. That is, departures from the assumption of an isolated system are negligible. If the differences are not negligible, then one must do a more complicated analysis using torques. Fortunately, for the Coriolis effect, this is not necessary. John has done nothing less here than undermine all of mechanics, a very important part of physics—a discipline he considers to be a true science.

At 1:01:00, John asked what is conserving angular momentum. He doesn’t get it. Just as in the case of linear motion, force causes a change in linear momentum, so in the case of rotational motion, torque causes a change in angular momentum. If there is no external torque, then angular momentum is conserved. If the external torque is so small as to be negligible, then the change in angular momentum will be negligible. So, John has this backward—he is asking what conserves angular momentum when he ought to be asking what changes angular momentum. John’s ignorance of basic physics is astounding, and all the while he heaps scorn and ridicule on others who do understand physics. For an example, just look at the words on the video at the time stamp above.

Point Objects

This was followed closely (around 1:03:00) with some statements about the angular momentum of point objects and extended objects. In his statement about point objects, John appears to have confused radius with radians.

Right after this, he brought up a hovering helicopter. This is the very poorly handled example that flat-earthers always go to. John concluded that a hovering helicopter on a rotating earth would have angular momentum. So far, so good. Then he looked up the definition of hovering and found this: “to float in the air without moving in any direction.” Again, so far, so good. But then he asked, “How can a hovering helicopter have an angular velocity yet not move in any direction?”

If John understood what he was talking about, he would know the answer to this question. Better yet, he wouldn’t have asked the question in the first place. In the coordinate system of the rotating earth, the helicopter is hovering (i.e., not moving in any direction). Keep in mind that the rotating earth is a non-inertial reference frame. From the perspective of an inertial reference frame (not spinning with the earth), the helicopter is moving, but an observer in such an inertial reference frame would see that the helicopter is moving along with the rotating earth and could readily recognize that within the reference frame of the rotating earth, the helicopter is at rest, and hence hovering in that reference frame. John unwittingly imported some notions about absolute motion into his discussion and badly applied his chosen definition of the word hover.

John doubled down on his misunderstanding by asking how a hovering helicopter rotating with the atmosphere and the earth (that are constantly accelerating due to being in rotation) can at the same time have zero acceleration? Again, the answer is easy: Within the non-inertial reference frame of the rotating atmosphere and earth, the helicopter is not moving, nor is it accelerating.

Around 1:07:00, John began what he thought was his next body blow. He wrote, “The law of conservation of angular momentum would never be described . . . without an inertial frame of reference because there’d never be a case where external torques . . . even exist.”

This statement is correct, though John doesn’t understand what he has said. Conservation of momentum (when there is no net torque) does not apply in a non-inertial reference frame. To understand properly what is going on, one must analyze the situation from an inertial reference frame. Since a truly non-inertial reference frame does not exist on a rotating earth (and atmosphere), the correct frame of reference to understand the Coriolis effect is not on the earth.

At 1:09:00, John introduced another quote which explained the difference between an inertial reference frame and a non-inertial reference frame. This quote said that Newton’s laws of motion are not valid in a non-inertial reference frame but are valid in an inertial frame. This was preceded by a quote stating that conservation of angular momentum is a consequence of Newton’s third law. Combining these two quotes and building on his misunderstanding of them, John asked, “How . . . can you invoke the law of conservation of angular momentum . . . whilst Newton’s third law is only valid in an inertial reference frame?” John went on to reason that we have only “a single rotating non-inertial spinning reference frame.” John followed this with another quote that described the Coriolis effect as an inertial force. From all this, John concluded with this question, “How can you have an inertial force without an inertial reference frame?”

Close but no Coriolis

John is so close to understanding the Coriolis effect. He has all that he needs. The problem is that he is seemingly incapable of putting it together properly.

First, a hovering helicopter is not subject to the Coriolis effect. Let me say that again for the sake of Nathan Oakley and all of John’s other buddies—a hovering helicopter is not subject to the Coriolis effect. An object in/on the spinning atmosphere/earth is not subject to the Coriolis effect unless its radius of rotation changes. Only if an object moves along the globe earth to the north or south will its radius of rotation change. This will necessarily change the object’s moment of inertia (for a point mass, moment of inertia I = mr²). If no torque acts on the body while moving north or south (this is a very important point), then there is no change in the object’s angular momentum. Angular momentum is the product of the moment of inertia and angular velocity. With no torque acting, if the moment of inertia of the object changes, then the object’s angular velocity must change. That is, the object will spin faster or slower than it was before. Since the earth and the objects on it spin at the same angular rate, then the object that is moving north or south will be perceived as turning east or west on the rotating earth (the Coriolis effect). Within the frame of reference of the spinning earth, the object’s angular momentum appears to have changed, even though no torque acted on the body. This is why we say Newton’s laws of motion do not describe what is seen in a non-inertial reference frame. However, from the perspective of an inertial reference frame, angular momentum is conserved. That is what makes possible the proper analysis of the situation.

Sadly, John isn’t listening to those who have attempted to correct his misunderstanding of physics.

Sadly, John isn’t listening to those who have attempted to correct his misunderstanding of physics. Around 1:11:00, he proceeded to double down in his gross misunderstanding of basic physics by trashing a person who tried to set flat-earthers straight about this online. John’s unwarranted abuse of people who understand these things is shameful. If you want to see some of this abuse for yourself, check out what he put up and read around 1:14:00. Here is just part of it.

Each are demonstrated mindless wiki parroting pretender clown clinical level Dunning-Kruger abject delusional morons that couldn’t pass 6^th grade intro to physics (or a 50 level basic reasoning course) that are h*** bent on showing the world . . . that they are the . . . dumb [expletive] of the millennium — masquerading at intellectuals!!!!

The abuse went on, but I think this gives you a good idea of what John does on a regular basis.

I emphasize that when John first approached me six years ago, he passed himself off as a Christian brother, a fellow believer in Christ (if you wish to read what he wrote to me in some emails, I have recorded them here). I don’t know any born-again people who are so crass, abusive, and vile in their speech and treatment of others as John is (and I have known many believers throughout my life). I suspect that John lied to me about his faith in an attempt to make me let my guard down.

Around 1:17:00, John put up another quote about the Coriolis effect that he found online. It stated that the Coriolis effect is an apparent deflection or illusion produced in a rotating reference frame. This is correct, but by John’s statements at this point, it is obvious that he does not understand these concepts.

John ended his presentation by screaming. In the midst of his screaming, he mocked those who disagree with him by putting up and reading this,

Look, Ma, the helicopter’s got no external torques . . . Its rotation is conserved!!!! Look, Ma, the hot air balloon got no external torques . . . It’s rotating around its center axis and angular momentum is conserved.

Finally, John got something right, even though he meant it as ridicule.