Down the cosmic drain....
LoopyByteloose
Posts: 12,537
I am aware that if you look at a sink drain, the vortex is in one direction above the equator and the opposite direction below the equator.
So what happens if I were in a space ship that was beyond the planetary system? Would the galaxy determine the direction of a vortex in some contexts ( I realize that I'd need artificial gravity to really drain a sink in space.)?
The concern here is whether there are vortexes in outer space and where their influences might come from.
From that, it would be interesting to consider boundary conditions -- places where those influences are multiple and collide.
So what happens if I were in a space ship that was beyond the planetary system? Would the galaxy determine the direction of a vortex in some contexts ( I realize that I'd need artificial gravity to really drain a sink in space.)?
The concern here is whether there are vortexes in outer space and where their influences might come from.
From that, it would be interesting to consider boundary conditions -- places where those influences are multiple and collide.
Comments
To be more accurate its not a reliable effect in a normal sink. With a large symmetric vessel it is detectable, but you have to eliminate pre-existing vortices in the liquid.
The effect is because the surface of the earth is a rotating frame of reference. Without gravity a sink won't drain BTW, so you need both an acceleration force and a rotation to get the effect. And without gravity liquids are a real nuisance (this is why spacecraft don't have sinks).
From what you are saying, I am presuming the vortex can go either way and am only works with high gravity and an actual fluid.
I think you will find there are billions of them, like so: http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso9845/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve
The point is whether the rotation is driven by momentum of a prior event or a system that includes a black hole at the center.
I suppose I should have found this Wiki before posting.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics
A celestial observer zooms out his astronomical telescope to watch sunlight as it reaches earth. Then he sees Proxima Centauri at 4.24 light years from the sun and continues until the spirals of the Milky Way are seen. Beyond that are uncountable billions of galaxies...
Why is the first electron shell limited to two electrons and the second shell eight?
The questions and the insights don't stop. I'm glad to be a part of a forum where these are normal questions.
Meanwhile, we overlook that vortex requires both a pull toward the center AND a downward pull. Black Holes are a misnomer as these are more likely to be gravitational centers, not holes at all.
Worm Holes are even more absurd as they presume one can fold space. Folding is a 2 dimensional phenomina and space is 3 dimensional. If you can't fold it, it will never happen OR a more precise explanation needs to be forthcoming.
Robots on Mars several centuries ago...ridiculous.
At least on a geometric graph you could show that as the vector approaches the speed of light, time aproaches zero. You have to dispense with classical thinking in this case.
I am a bit weird in my thinking but when I consider that the nucleus, in relative terms is as distant from its electrons as the sun is from the planets, I tend to think of matter as being constructed of 'cosmic Legos'.
One of the few times 'absurd' may be proper is when I say that no matter how hard I flap my arms I can't fly.
Wait a minute. I can imagine taking a one dimensional line and folding it back on itself at some point. In doing so I have to move into two dimensions.
Similarly when folding a two dimensional plane back on itself, as in paper folding, I have to move it into three dimensions.
Ergo, if I want to fold a three dimensional thing back on itself I have to move in a fourth dimension. No problem.
One should be careful about calling theories "absurd".
Let's say I have a proposition, a theory, call it A.
Mathematically we might deduce that if A is true so is something else, call it B.
And so on through C, D, E and so on until we come to a result U where we stop and say, "hei U is nuts, clearly absurd. And if U is impossible there for the starting point A must be false as well".
Such arguments have been used to disprove theories in physics for a long time.
Trouble is experiment sometimes turns up the fact that "U" is actually possible and "A" was a correct idea all along.
Lardom,
When you finally get that weekend break on a moon base, go to the exercise dome, there you may find that you can fly if you flap your arms:)
Very clever, but one must be careful where logic will take you. Space is conventionally 3 dimensional in a Cartesian co-ordinate systems - but simply it is the empty background of the known and unknown universe. Imposing a generative rationale on it leads to more and more dimensions that are more and more complex - absurdly so. Martin Gardner explored all the extensions of dimentions - like hyper cubes or hyper spheres. At some point, you begin to feel like a puppy chasing its tail.
Vortexes do have a top and a bottom or just maybe can have two ends in space, but the 'folding of space' is truly ledgerdomain. Space just is space. It sit there and awaits for physical matter (and anti-matter) to impose order or chaos upon it.
I didn't realize that absurd or absurdity was a taboo word. That in itself is ironically absurd. And now you are in the problematic realm of Godel and why metalanguages require yet another higher language to define themselves. We are getting very mystical. I was just trying to stay physical as it is called Physics.
@Heater
What you can imagine does not mean that it actually exists. What can you prove?
Mathematicians are free to follow whatever premises and logical rules they like so they can have
a head full of imaginary numbers, infinites, multiple dimensions etc
Physicists are not so free, having to constrain themselves to what seems to describe the observed universe.
However it often turns out that those crazy ideas that mathematicians have do help us model the
observed world and make predictions about it. Actually that is not true. A vortex cannot have a free end. Unconstrained vortices will always form a loop.
The common vortices we see like cyclones and tornadoes do not have a loop because one end is terminated by
the ground and the other runs out of air at the top. Look at smoke rings for example or
this http://raywingerter.tumblr.com/post/13800783359/breaking-sound-barrier-vortex Taboo, no. I'm just pointing out that if you say an assumption of mine is wrong because it would logically
lead to an absurd result which can't be true, that is not a sound proof of my error. There have been may such
examples in history. True. On the other hand if I can't imagine it, it may as well not exist. At least for me.
We should probably try to imagine all sorts of things, some of them will turn out to have a degree
of existance. Nothing. I'm with Ren
So an unconstrained vortex becomes a doughnut or a toroid. That is extremely interesting as many of the graphic presentations of worm holes and black holes that I see do imply that they are a vortex. And yet, observation presents the contrary. There is nothing to attach the bottom to and no explanation of what would cause an axial vector to plant itself.
And some point, people became all too willing to accept that celestial mechanics are mysteriously different than the terrestrial forms. I suspect a Black Hole really should be termed an 'Inverted Star' or 'Inverted Super-star'. For decades I have looked at Black Holes and wondered where does that hole really go. And where does it begin. I've been listening to recent National Geographic presentations on TV with a more critical view.
Please forgive the use of absurd if it offends you. Actually, 'I exist therefore I think' is far more likely to be true. I don't seem to have first become aware and then aware of my physical being. I sense the reverse is more likely, but I did buy into Congito Ero Sum when I was a teen. There is the added observation that often my own thought is not superior. If I were to resemble how and what I thing, I fear that would be very unappealing.
The real problem here is to be able to cut through semantics, linguistics, and graphics. One has to get to a sound representation of the universe in terms of its physical being in order to fully identify its motions, expansion, and/or contraction. Since Black Holes (or whatever they really are) influence each other? Can we have an event where two combine? Or is there some sort of isolating principle that keeps such catastropes at bay?
A cow looks at all that delicious grass and thinks "What could possibly be better than this?" (BTW, taste as well time must be relative...) Meanwhile people have learned to control things made of copper, silicon and plastic with light. The human mind can describe and manipulate forces that cannot be detected by the five senses. This is complete and utter silliness in the animal kingdom.
Even weirder is this (and I welcome discussion): If time at the speed of light is equal to zero then light could be everywhere at the 'same' time. I think time must be seen in metaphysical terms.
Metaphysics may come up with new ideas or better explainations - nothing wrong with breakthroughs and new discoveries. But there is a tendency to draw people away from reality.
Regarding 'The grass is always green on the other side'. The Chinese don't say it that way. The say the farther mountains are always higher.
Meanwhile, I can't believe I am watching a Taiwanese talk show where pretty girls are sitting around learning to tie rebar. If you have ever done it in real life it is hard, heavy work with usually adverse weather.
BTW, when I think over what a Black Hole might really be. It might have a surface and actually have vortexes on the surface. After all Saturn has them. But that would imply a Black Hole is not a hole at all, but a rather large spherical mass.