Today i found out ....

[Praetor]

I've just noticed this edit of yours:

Edit: Everything I share has been verified and I can cite proof and may also refer to leading Scientific Journals if needed to verify my posts.

So yeah, we have this here:

Today I found out:
that in ANY of those "Probiotic Yogurt/Probiotics" products advertisement they dont say what good the bacteria actually does as......... NO ONE KNOWS!!!!.
It certainly does no harm but as there are thousands of different such bacteria,its really hard for Scientist to test them all so no one know what it does.

Bring it on.

http://listverse.com/2014/03/25/10-quest...uman-body/
http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders...c-overview
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/29/health...-bacteria/

Citing proof,but geez I wonder what makes you want me to prove it,hmm.

---

User was banned for: Compromised account
Time left: (Permanent)

[Recursive]

I've just noticed this edit of yours:

Edit: Everything I share has been verified and I can cite proof and may also refer to leading Scientific Journals if needed to verify my posts.

So yeah, we have this here:

Today I found out:
that in ANY of those "Probiotic Yogurt/Probiotics" products advertisement they dont say what good the bacteria actually does as......... NO ONE KNOWS!!!!.
It certainly does no harm but as there are thousands of different such bacteria,its really hard for Scientist to test them all so no one know what it does.

Bring it on.

http://listverse.com/2014/03/25/10-quest...uman-body/
http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders...c-overview
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/29/health...-bacteria/

Citing proof,but geez I wonder what makes you want me to prove it,hmm.

I'm pretty sure the main purpose of the so-called 'probiotics' was to counter Candida in the intestinal tract. I can't exactly say with 100% certainty, and it's not like I study this stuff (so if you wanted to know more you'd have to look into it yourself...) but yeah.

At any rate, I wouldn't say webmd and cnn were exactly 'reliable' sources on their own. Haven't even -heard- of listverse.

---

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of 'hot xxx galore'. While I clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mouring for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", I muttered, "Give me back my free hardcore!" ... quoth the server, 404.

[Thyrzul]

Hehh, I was expecting stuff like Science or Nature, or anything of that quality. Random "X funny facts about this and that" sites can write anything they want without peer review, but it is still a general principle in science that you don't put anything to mass production you haven't studied thoroughly enough beforehand. That means, scientist might not know how all probiotics work or what their exact purposes are, but then only the known ones will be used for yoghurts and other food.

---

[Tunicle]

Still not primary but a decent state of play at this moment http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9789814411622, if you can get it from your library.

It is a bit of an Aunt Sally question however due to the diversity of the conditions, organisms and application techniques possible.

---

[Faxe]

That sounds interesting. Post the calculations for me (an uneducated individual in mathematics). I'm curious about the complexity of such matters. And whether I would understand them. Pancakes.

Cope that.

So, lets assume Coriolis acceleration (basically, we'll work with acceleration as a unit for Force to mass). That's given by 2(wXv) (X is the mathematical operator of cross), now, lets take the best case w and v are directly perpendicular to one anther, to get the best out of the cross operator, which means we are basically at one of the poles (doesn't matter which). So, our nice Coriolis acceleration would be 2(w*v) with the force's direction into the center of the sink's hole.

Now, lets find it. Our water particles are moving in a speed of about 10 CM/sec, which is 0.1 [Meter/Second]. Now, our w which is the rotational speed of the Earth is easy to calculate as 2pi/24 [1/hours] but we want to work in meters/second so lets transform it into seconds [2pi/(24*60*60)] (24 hours, 60 minutes in each hour, 60 seconds in each minute) that's 7.27*(10^-5).
So our Coriolis acceleration is ~1.5*(10^-5) [Meter/sec^2]

Now, lets check the gravity, and assume that whoever installed the sink hole didn't put directly horizontal to the earth. Lets check how accurate he must be, shall we?
Lets call our deviation degree a, and check how big is the acceleration that counters the Coriolis force.
so, for gravity we'll get g*sin(a), since it's likely a really small degree, we can safely assume sin a ~ a (in Radians, of course).
Lets assume g = 10 [Meter/sec^2] (it's slightly lower than that, but this is close enough as we are talking about size ratios here).

We get that our dear plumber that installed the sink must put the sink hole horizontally to the Earth in a deviation degree lower than 1.5*10^-6 radians.

Most likely that without using a microscope with some water to measure their deviation from being horizontal while installing the sink hole, and then letting a machine to do it (since even the tiniest shaking of the muscles, which occurs normally all the time) would create a bigger deviation.

Uhm...

I may be mistaken, but what you did was kind of calculated what kind of slant a surface must have to correspond to the coriolis force experienced by something going at a certain speed that you chose at random, at the rotational poles of the earth.

What you kind of didnt explain is why that would impact whether the coriolis force would be strong enough to make the water cycle in a certain direction while leaving the sink or not. Maybe I just didnt understand why, but I think that this angle actually doesnt matter, except maybe in some very special conditions, like the sink being totally flat and and the hole being at exactly the edge of the sink.

Without doing any calculations myself or thinking about it for too long, I'd say the thing that is most important thing for what direction the water cycles is:

1. If the water was already cycling before the plug was pulled. In a perfectly symterical round cylinder, if the water was already rotating faster than 1 revolution per day, the coriolis force will most likely not change the direction it was rotating in.

2. The shape of the sink. For example, if the sink has a relief/shape of a vortex or a spiral, it will probably affect the direction the water cycles more than anything else. Other shapes will also affect it, in less obvious ways.

But if the sink is a symetrical cylinder with a flat bottom, and the water isnt rotating at all relative to the earth surface before the plug gets pulled, I dont see how the angle of the cylinder would have an effect on which way the water should rotate, or how it should counter-act the coriolis force, from your explanation. when the water starts moving towards the hole in the sink, the coriolis force will deviate it slightly in one direction (either the left or the right of the motion, depending on which hemisphere you're on), which creates a slight clockwise or counterclockwise rotation while the water is exiting the sink. A slanted bottom of the sink would only affect the motion of the water and act against the coriolis force at a small region of the sink, while the coriolis force acts in all regions where the water is moving, so it seems that the solution cant really be that simple.

Not saying that you must be wrong, but as is your explanation doesnt really explain why your calculations are a proof.

---

User was banned for: Karlotta
Time left: (Permanent)

[Pancakes]

That sounds interesting. Post the calculations for me (an uneducated individual in mathematics). I'm curious about the complexity of such matters. And whether I would understand them. Pancakes.

Cope that.

So, lets assume Coriolis acceleration (basically, we'll work with acceleration as a unit for Force to mass). That's given by 2(wXv) (X is the mathematical operator of cross), now, lets take the best case w and v are directly perpendicular to one anther, to get the best out of the cross operator, which means we are basically at one of the poles (doesn't matter which). So, our nice Coriolis acceleration would be 2(w*v) with the force's direction into the center of the sink's hole.

Now, lets find it. Our water particles are moving in a speed of about 10 CM/sec, which is 0.1 [Meter/Second]. Now, our w which is the rotational speed of the Earth is easy to calculate as 2pi/24 [1/hours] but we want to work in meters/second so lets transform it into seconds [2pi/(24*60*60)] (24 hours, 60 minutes in each hour, 60 seconds in each minute) that's 7.27*(10^-5).
So our Coriolis acceleration is ~1.5*(10^-5) [Meter/sec^2]

Now, lets check the gravity, and assume that whoever installed the sink hole didn't put directly horizontal to the earth. Lets check how accurate he must be, shall we?
Lets call our deviation degree a, and check how big is the acceleration that counters the Coriolis force.
so, for gravity we'll get g*sin(a), since it's likely a really small degree, we can safely assume sin a ~ a (in Radians, of course).
Lets assume g = 10 [Meter/sec^2] (it's slightly lower than that, but this is close enough as we are talking about size ratios here).

We get that our dear plumber that installed the sink must put the sink hole horizontally to the Earth in a deviation degree lower than 1.5*10^-6 radians.

Most likely that without using a microscope with some water to measure their deviation from being horizontal while installing the sink hole, and then letting a machine to do it (since even the tiniest shaking of the muscles, which occurs normally all the time) would create a bigger deviation.

Uhm...

I may be mistaken, but what you did was kind of calculated what kind of slant a surface must have to correspond to the coriolis force experienced by something going at a certain speed that you chose at random, at the rotational poles of the earth.

What you kind of didnt explain is why that would impact whether the coriolis force would be strong enough to make the water cycle in a certain direction while leaving the sink or not. Maybe I just didnt understand why, but I think that this angle actually doesnt matter, except maybe in some very special conditions, like the sink being totally flat and and the hole being at exactly the edge of the sink.

Without doing any calculations myself or thinking about it for too long, I'd say the thing that is most important thing for what direction the water cycles is:

1. If the water was already cycling before the plug was pulled. In a perfectly symterical round cylinder, if the water was already rotating faster than 1 revolution per day, the coriolis force will most likely not change the direction it was rotating in.

2. The shape of the sink. For example, if the sink has a relief/shape of a vortex or a spiral, it will probably affect the direction the water cycles more than anything else. Other shapes will also affect it, in less obvious ways.

But if the sink is a symetrical cylinder with a flat bottom, and the water isnt rotating at all relative to the earth surface before the plug gets pulled, I dont see how the angle of the cylinder would have an effect on which way the water should rotate, or how it should counter-act the coriolis force, from your explanation. when the water starts moving towards the hole in the sink, the coriolis force will deviate it slightly in one direction (either the left or the right of the motion, depending on which hemisphere you're on), which creates a slight clockwise or counterclockwise rotation while the water is exiting the sink. A slanted bottom of the sink would only affect the motion of the water and act against the coriolis force at a small region of the sink, while the coriolis force acts in all regions where the water is moving, so it seems that the solution cant really be that simple.

Not saying that you must be wrong, but as is your explanation doesnt really explain why your calculations are a proof.

Usually, in physics or engineering, we look at one particle, and from that we realize how a body of liquid or gas behaves, so, with your will lets go for that.

We assume that the sink hole is normal - a flat cylinder that has a simple symmetric (about so) curve all around it.

So, we look at a water particle that cycles the sink. It will, of course, have a sort of spiral course (not a perfect spire, which is what I will disproof shortly).

In my calculations I calculated the Coriolis force that would affect this particle in one of the Earth's poles, because in them Coriolis force would be the strongest (due to the cross operator, as if we look at the size of the force it would be 2*|w|*|v|*sin(alpha) with alpha being the degree between the two vectors, however in the poles, alpha would be pi/2 which yields us maximum Coriolis force. Gravity, due to its nature of always being in the direction of directly inside the sphere, is irrelevant of location.


So, lets look at our water particle, it has Coriolis force that is always in the direction of INSIDE the sink (aiming to its middle), however gravity, isn't just so.

If the sink hole is displaced from being directly horizontal to the Earth, in a system that is placed on the sink (e1,e2,e3, with e3 being the normal outside of the sink), it will also have a fraction of force that isn't just in e3, but also affecting e1,e2 plane.

That's the force I've calculated, and with which disproved that water in either side of the Earth cycle in one way or anther, it's completely unrelated to that, it's related to the shape of the sink. Thus, in your home you can have two sinks, one with water cycling cloakwise and one with water cycling counter-clockwise.

---

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD

[Faxe]

So, we look at a water particle that cycles the sink. It will, of course, have a sort of spiral course (not a perfect spire, which is what I will disproof shortly).

A slanted sink will certainly make the spiral imperfect and asysmetrical, but that doesnt mean the coriolis force wont make the water start to cycle in a certain direction, assuming it wasnt already cycling in some direction before.

So, lets look at our water particle, it has Coriolis force that is always in the direction of INSIDE the sink (aiming to its middle), however gravity, isn't just so.

The direction of the coriolis force depends on the direction of the rotational vetcor w (in the equation you had before), and also on the direction of the movement of the particle v. If the water is cycling in one direction, the coriolis force will point into the middle of the sink. If its cycling in the other direction, it will be pointing away from the sink.

In the case that the water wasnt rotating before the water started pouring out through the hole in the middle, the coriolis force will first be 0, because the particles arent moving. Once they start moving towards the middle of the sink because thats where the water exits, the coriolis force will start to deviate the movement either to the right or the left (depending on whether you're north or south) of their current movement, which means that the water in the sink will start to rotate. Once the water is no longer moving straight towards the center but rotating slightly, the coriolis force will be pointing more towards the outside of the sink. That's the case where there there was no initial rotation. The case where it was already made to cycle in either direction before the plug was pulled is kind of irrelevant, because the water will continue cycling in that direction because they coriolis force is so weak.

If the sink hole is displaced from being directly horizontal to the Earth, in a system that is placed on the sink (e1,e2,e3, with e3 being the normal outside of the sink), it will also have a fraction of force that isn't just in e3, but also affecting e1,e2 plane.

That's the force I've calculated, and with which disproved that water in either side of the Earth cycle in one way or anther, it's completely unrelated to that, it's related to the shape of the sink. Thus, in your home you can have two sinks, one with water cycling cloakwise and one with water cycling counter-clockwise.

The gravitational component to e1 and/or e2 introduced by a slanted sink points in the same direciton no matter where in the sinl the particle is, and thus does not counter the coriolis force for every particle in the sink, because the direction of the coriolis force changes depending on location (because the direction of the movement vector depends on location). If you want to prove that the gravitational component cancels the coriolis force with a simple formula like that, you'd first have to demonstrate that it really cancels it for every particle (which you cant, cause it doesnt). Since you cant do that, you'd have to start integrating the differential equations of the forces for the hole sink, and show that they cancel each other in total. The latter is the step I was hoping you'd explain. Right now I dont know why if the slant andgle and gravity hinders the coriolis force in one place, why should it stop the whole movement? Just like it hinders it in one place, it would amplfy it in another place.

Out of curiosity... did you choose this way of proving or disproving it yourself, or did you get it from somewhere? If you got it form somewhere it would maybe help if you showed that directly.

---

User was banned for: Karlotta
Time left: (Permanent)

[Pancakes]

The coriolis acceleration points constantly to the center of sink's tied system, vector v is tangent to the circle, w is going from the southern pole to the northern pole.

What I am saying, is that the cycle itself is caused by physical aspects, rather than the rotation of the Earth. Thus the fact if you are in Britain or Australia, doesn't affect the side the water cycles since it's neglect-able to the acceleration caused by gravity.

I never said it would "stop" the particle, only that it would be as strong enough as to counter Coriolis force (or acceleration rather, m does divide out if you go for forces anyway), thus the assumption of north/south and turning-side is, well, wrong, given the fact it's deprived from Coriolis acceleration.

And I thought it out myself during a lecture in Dynamics about dust particles movement in a turbulence. EDIT: My teacher also confirmed this true, though he said my numbers are slightly off (I got a smaller degree, the numbers I used here were his after fixing a few things), even though I was off by a factor of 10^-2, the degree is still VERY small.

EDIT 2: What I meant with that, in summation, is that Coriolis force is so neglectable in compare to gravity. The example of the sink in an ideal system would simply create an harmonic movement, but since the particle is also having its radius changing as it slowly sinks in the sink, it gets a bigger end speed

I hope it's better explained in this way, sorry for any confusion I might've made.

---

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD

[matskiuk]

i like chips

---

[Kontrazec (Somni)]

i like chips

Absolute gold. Today I found out I love this person whoever it might be.

---

Sucks to be a weight on the wrong side of the brilliance-insanity scale.