I think we should rename this thread "Smiless toilet view of the universe". It just works on so many levels. Dark matter swirling around the galaxies, stars swirling around the gigantic black hole, .... one has only to sit on a toilet to imagine a big bang.

My black hole posts are serious, my toilet entries somewhat less so. I agree that the Coriolis effect on a drain is very small and scientific calculations would indicate that it "probably" does not affect the direction of the vortex. However, the actual direction of the vortex in the Northern Hemisphere is almost always counterclockwise so I was taught that "perhaps only a very small effect is all that is required". There do not appear to be any other forces acting on the water and the sinks I checked had still water before the plug was pulled.

JB, I actually posted the answer to the scientific "drain study" in an obscure location in my post just to see if anyone was paying attention. I do not know the answer to the "if it isn't Coriolis, what is it?" question. I do know that going to the toilet can make one feel "magical".

Just a short note on...Considerting that the coriolis effect is always present, "perfectly still" water would be all but impossible to achieve. That is, there would have to be something to counteract the coriolis effect before perfectly still water could exist.

That would tend to support the idea that the coriolis effect has some affect on the swirling of drainwater.

But the math just doesn't seem to add up.

I'm stumped. Not enough accurate data.

EDIT: Regarding "Smiless toilet view of the universe" I'd like to submit for consideration, the replacement of "The Big Bang" with "The Big Flush". as an explanation for the beginning of the universe.

Well even the "Thinker" often contemplated such hard and difficult topics on a toilete seat. Perhaps he wasn't on a toilete seat, but nevertheless he was thinking!

The Big Bang came first... an expanding blast of plasma gas combined with large amounts of dark matter.

The Big Flush came shortly thereafter.

I think The Big Flush is more desriptive of the end of the universe....

Metalwing mentioned:

I think we should rename this thread "Smiless toilet view of the universe". It just works on so many levels. Dark matter swirling around the galaxies, stars swirling around the gigantic black hole, .... one has only to sit on a toilet to imagine a big bang.



This had me laughing that I spilled my coffee all over my keyboard. I really need to control my laughing don't I

How do we really know that we arent actually minute particles living in a huge toilet?

And we are being flushed.

sorry but thats the stupidest thing i've ever heard....ur 'hunch' that stars have small black holes at there centres is obsered....if it were true the star wouldnt of been able to form in the first place

Armitage Shanks is God.

I missed that post. If you use the quote function at the bottom of your screen, it will include the exact quote to which you are responding.

Maybe it is not a very powerful black hole. Just a tiny one. Getting bigger and bigger. Then, eventually it causes the star to collapse, creating a large 'black hole' that extinguishes all the fire and light.

Well I hope that we are part of an abandoned and unused toilete at the moment.

Watch out for falling meteorites!

Oh for f#ck's sake; no, there isn't.

At the center of a star is a massive core of hydrogen fusion. The fact that you made such a claim shows that you have no idea how stars work.

how can anyone really know what is at the center of a star. can you go there and see it? of course not, guesses are all we have for that, even using science.

Well if you are claiming that, where is YOUR evidence for that? And if a small black hole exists within that core how can you disprove it?

Exactly.

Black holes are everywhere.

there is a black hole in my back yard

it's where I dump trash

THE EVENT HORIZON:

(I don't really understand it but find it interesting.)

If a "black hole" is really a 'hole' how can it be a collapsed star? And if it is a collapsed star... my question would be collapsed into where or what?

Is there something on the other side?


This is a cut-paste from wikipedia:

Interacting with an event horizon

A misconception concerning event horizons, especially black hole event horizons, is that they represent an immutable surface that destroys objects that approach them. In practice, all event horizons appear to be some distance away from any observer, and objects sent towards an event horizon never appear to cross it from the sending observer's point of view (as the horizon-crossing event's light cone never intersects the observer's world line). Attempting to make an object approaching the horizon remain stationary with respect to an observer requires applying a force whose magnitude becomes unbounded (becoming infinite) the closer it gets.

For the case of an horizon perceived by a uniformly accelerating observer in empty space, the horizon seems to remain a fixed distance from the observer no matter how its surroundings move. Varying the observer's acceleration may cause the horizon to appear to move over time, or may prevent an event horizon from existing, depending on the acceleration function chosen. The observer never touches the horizon, and never passes a location where it appeared to be.

For the case of an horizon perceived by an occupant of a De Sitter Universe, the horizon always appears to be a fixed distance away for a non-accelerating observer. It is never contacted, even by an accelerating observer.

For the case of the horizon around a black hole, observers stationary with respect to a distant object will all agree on where the horizon is. While this seems to allow an observer lowered towards the hole on a rope to contact the horizon, in practice this cannot be done. If the observer is lowered very slowly, then, in the observer's frame of reference, the horizon appears to be very far away, and ever more rope needs to be paid out to reach the horizon. If the observer is quickly lowered by another observer, then indeed the first observer, and some of the rope can touch and even cross the (second observer's) event horizon. If the rope is pulled taut to fish the first observer back out, then the forces along the rope increase without bound as they approach the event horizon, and at some point the rope must break. Furthermore, the break must occur not at the event horizon, but at a point where the second observer can observe it.

Attempting to stick a rigid rod through the hole's horizon cannot be done: if the rod is lowered extremely slowly, then it is always too short to touch the event horizon, as the coordinate frames near the tip of the rod are extremely compressed. From the point of view of an observer at the end of the rod, the event horizon remains hopelessly out of reach. If the rod is lowered quickly, then the same problems as with the rope are encountered: the rod must break and the broken-off pieces inevitably fall in.

These peculiarities only occur because of the supposition that the observers be stationary with respect to some other distant observer. Observers who fall into the hole are moving with respect to the distant observer, and so perceive the horizon as being in a different location, seeming to recede in front of them so that they never contact it. Increasing tidal forces (and eventual impact with the hole's gravitational singularity) are the only locally noticeable effects. While this seems to allow an in-falling observer to relay information from objects outside their perceived horizon but inside the distant observer's perceived horizon, in practice the horizon recedes by an amount small enough that by the time the in-falling observer receives any signal from farther into the hole, they've already crossed what the distant observer perceived to be the horizon, and this reception event (and any retransmission) can't be seen by the distant observer.