Crazy Pool Vortex [video] | Hacker News Reader

Crazy Pool Vortex [video]

youtube.com

62 pointsMcKittrick16 comments

Dolphin ring bubbles are also cool and involve vortices.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuVgXJ55G6Y

I didn't quite get why a vortex isn't a wave...

She said something about how a wave is a transfer of energy but not matter, but this seems incomplete. Obviously matter is transferring while the wave is passing.

I guess the technical difference that a wave will mostly return to its original state after one wavelength? But, doesn't the vortex mostly return to its original state after one rotation? Otherwise the food coloring would disperse a lot faster.

Hoping there's an easy explanation.

With a wave, water is displaced a short distance as the wave travels. Think of loose sping, (e.g. a slinky spring) and how if you stretched it out a bit a compression wave would travels down it[1]. Each part of the spring moves only a little, but the wave travels the length of the spring.

With a vortex the material spinning in the vortex stays together, that's why the dye droped into the vortex stays in the vortex and you would see it travel across the pool, and you see smoke rings travel through the air.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd3afUct2l8

Super cool! Didn't realize that underwater vortices could have shapes other than the familiar 'tornado'. And apparently 'physicsing' is a new verb!

This is an awesome video. Can't stand the editing style though, with several audio tracks cut together to continually disrupt the listener's brain. Kinda like 'quick takes' of audio. It's seemingly become popular on youtube -- the worst offenders are the Green brothers -- oh, I see this was edited by them. Egad.

It's still a great video.

Looking at this demo makes me wonder if we could compare it to a black hole. Specifically that the vortexes are connected, that it creates a shadow (there is no light in a black hole), and is a black hole pushing light out or away (in another dimension or?)

The coolest part is at 2 minutes in when she puts food coloring in it.

It takes a couple minutes to get interesting, but it really is an interesting phenomenon that she's looking at.

Mods, please change link to

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnbJEg9r1o8

This "sun-gazing" site looks like the worst sort of zero-value content aggregator.

Done. Url changed from http://www.sun-gazing.com/physics-girl-unique-crazy-pool-vor....

Content aggregators serve a useful purpose in filtering out the noise of the internet & bringing you gems. You did watch this video because the O.P. saw this video on a "zero-value content aggregator".

How do you know they wouldn't have seen it on youtube, if said aggregator didn't exist?

Well, we know they saw it through the aggregator because that was the link they posted. Unless the poster is somehow rewarded for sharing the link through the aggregator, it seems like a valid link. How else do you discover new sites unless you use them? If there is a line that we draw to distinguish click-bait sites from higher quality aggregators, who gets to determine where that line is?

I'm not sure how this question applies in this case, but I think it demonstrates that it isn't such a simple one to answer. I personally saw this video directly on YouTube a few days ago, but I know there are countless others I've only seen by following links.

As I reread your comment, I think I'm actually in support of your view.

Since I can't prove or disprove your claim, I don't have the burden of proof.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

If the OP found it on YouTube, then the OP would have posted a YouTube link.

The credit for this video goes to "Physics Girl"; she's the one who made it. By hosting the video on her own channel on YouTube, she has a modicum of control over the presentation and proceeds of her work. On "sun-gazing", she shares the page with:

    "the exotic belly-dancing cat"
    "12 celebs who came out of the closet"
    "12 celebs who are actually black"
    "this food kills belly fat"
    etc.

Of course she could disable embedding if she chose, but some sites that might embed her work might actually add some value or bring in traffic organically, rather than through SEO shenanigans and link-baitery. The less we reward the latter techniques our attention, the rarer they will become. The more we reward value-added sites, the more common they will become. I know which sort of web appeals to me. Anyone with taste can tell the difference, and fortunately on HN our mods have taste.

Nobody is denying Physics Girl's credit. I'm sure Physics Girl does appreciate her content being promoted for free, even by your despised Sun Gazing. Tell me one online personality who wouldn't want free "good" publicity?

Physics Girl does receive revenue from the embedded video as well.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/132596?hl=en

The party that "loses out" to some extent is YouTube, since the user would not be taken to YouTube. However, YouTube does allow embedding, with the purpose of linking to content to generate traffic.

Looking at the 78 FB comments on the Sun Gazing post, it seems Sun Gazing is also a community. Surely an online community is not of "zero value".

The content creator benefits by getting publicity & money. The aggregator's audience benefits by getting content they want to see on their FB feed. YouTube benefits by getting traffic. Hacker News readers benefit from seeing the video in the first place. Seems symbiotic to me...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com