Today i found out ....

[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.

As I said, the coriolis force will be pointing strictly into the center of the sink in a very strict special case: The one that the water is already cycling in a strictly circular motion (no draining happening), in one and not the other direction.

So actually that special case cant even apply to a sink where the water is pouring out in the middle, because that would mean that the movement of the water also has a component moving to the middle of this sink (which would leave the corioilis force pointing slightly away from the center). So, this special case is not only a special case, but also one that is actually not applicable to the problem of a sink being drained of water through a hole in the middle. In addition to that, you have not explained why the numbers you calculated matter, even in this (not applicable) special case.

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.

The rotation of the earth is a physical aspect.

The fact of whether you are on the northern or southern hemisphere does affect what direction a maelstrom can take when it pours out of the hole in the middle. Only the angular velocity of the rotation caused by the coriolis force is likely to be smaller than one will notice (likely less than one rotation per day). Its likely that other factors will affect the rotatin more than the coriolis force, for example the shape of the sink, or the way the water was moving due to other reasons, for example being stirred or being poured into the sink at a ceratin direction/angle to beign with.

However, a cylindrical shaped sink with a hole in the middle, slightly tilted, is not going to hinder the coriolis force from acing. If it is, you still havent proven why, and if its true I'd still be interested to see a correct demonstration.

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.

Thing is, tilting a a bucket with a hole in the middle introdice (or counter) a rotational movement to the water. If it does, you're doing to have to show why. If it doesnt, your very hypothesis is wrong.

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.

Whether the coriolis force is small compared to gravity is totally irrelevant to the problem of creating a rotation, as long as gravity doesnt introduce or counter a rotation.

Its like saying that because the speed of the earth relative to some other interstellar object is small compared to the speed of a bullet relative to your body, the bullet wont kill you when it hits you. If you want to compare the numbers, you'll have to explain why your comparison matters. This, you didnt do.

Fair enough, I guess.

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.

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.
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.
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.

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.

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.

---

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD