(04-29-2014, 12:12 AM)Pancakes Wrote: The movement towards the center of the water is very slow, far slower than the angular speed (at least in the outer rim, which would determine the rotation direction) which is why I neglected it when doing the calculation for the rotation direction, should've mentioned that.
That, and you should also explain why you expect the water to turn in such a way that the coriolis force points in wards and not outwards.
(04-29-2014, 12:12 AM)Pancakes Wrote: The numbers are comparison of accelerations. In the example I gave out, it simply shows out that Coriolis acceleration cannot be the reason for the rotation direction.
So you gave an example where you (allegedly, I'm not convinced you did show what) showed that the coriolis force cannot be the reason for the rotation. That, in itself, does not show that the coriolis force will not cause the water to turn in a certain direction while draining. It would just show that a certain rotation that you postulated was not caused by the coriolis force. What do you expect you are proving there? (if you actually proved anything)
(04-29-2014, 12:12 AM)Pancakes Wrote: Note that rotation will always happen due to a turbulent nature of the sink, which happens due to other physical reasons, though these reasons such as water compression\pressure comparison (I might be using a slightly incorrect terms in English, so in a case I do, I beg your pardon) wouldn't determine the direction in which it would rotate.
Uhm, yeah what you said there does not make any sense in english. You may want to reformulate it. Turbulent nature of the sink? Do you mean that the water will probably already have some sort of movement relative to the sink before the draining starts? I already said that in order to demonstrate anything, we'd have to assume that there was no such movemment, because the coriolis force would be too small to change the movement significantly. Only water compression/pressure has nothing to do with that, and does not cause a rotation.
(04-29-2014, 12:12 AM)Pancakes Wrote: Anyway back to the numbers, if we would choose a point in time and place on the outer rim, we could show, that by mere gravity reasons, that point, that very exact point, would be rotating to the other side, this would actually create an harmonic movement, and not an angular one. I think I did miss something very crucial in my calculations now that I think about it - what would need to be the angle to stop the rotation IF, it would only deprive from Coriolis acceleration. This I might do tomorrow should I have the time, but I wager the degree would still be lower than 0.1.
not sure what you mean with harmonic movenent. You mean a movement without a rotation? Yeah, thats what gravity does. One of the characteristics of a gravity, or an electiracal fiels is that its rotation is 0 (rotation here meaning the operator "rot", I guess you should be able to know what that is). It doesnt cause rotation, so it doesnt hinder rotation, so it wont hinder rotation caused by corioilis force.
(04-29-2014, 12:12 AM)Pancakes Wrote: TL;DR, the comparison of the numbers show out that it cannot be that the rotation is caused by Coriolis acceleration, since it just needs a tiny bit of an angle to fling it out of the angular movement zone into the harmonic one, which isn't even a rotation in this case.
The mistake that you seem to have made is that you picked a certain location with a certain speed and a certain direction, where the slant angle that you chose would do exactly what you want it too: work against the coriolis force. But the equation you set up is valid for exactly 1 infintesimally small point in the sink, and not valid anywhere else, because the speed, direction, and slant angle relative to the direction will be different. And even for that infinitessimally small point, since the sink is symetrical, there is another infinitessimally small point at the other side of the hole where exactly the oposite of what you calculated happens: the slant and gravity work in the same direction as the coriolis force, and not in the oposite one. So what you calculated is 100% irrelevant.
(04-29-2014, 12:12 AM)Pancakes Wrote: DISCLAIMER - it's 2 AM here, I will go over what I've written in this post tomorrow to fix any bullcrap I might've accidentally written, so don't take it all as your sacred truth.
I think you were a little over-eager in thinking that your reasoning was correct, just because you came to a conclusion that you expected.
User was banned for: Karlotta
Time left: (Permanent)