The Titanic: Sunk by the Moon?

[sleepy]

Interesting.

http://news.yahoo.com/sank-titanic-s...181342953.html

According to the theory, the icebergs were pulled from their Greenland bays by a critical gravitational alignment of the Moon and the Sun which created high tides in January 1912 and were then able to drift south into the shipping lanes.

But I think the tides are created by the influence of platinum group metals in the sea and their interactions with hydrogen, however, solar radiation has an effect on hydrogen (excitation, similar to the effects of microwaves on hydrogen; microwave oven heat by exciting hydrogen in the food), which might allow greater interaction with the metals, hence higher tides.

But the news of the new theory may be due to the re-release of the movie.
Wonder why they would suppress scientific and historical facts in order to accommodate commercial interests?

[Ike Savage]

well, a butterfly that flapped its wings caused a cyclone on the other side of the earth. there's always something, but the crew knew they had to look out for icebergs regardless of how casual or how severe a danger icebergs were that time of year.

much more of interest to me is a case of simple human miscommunication plus human error plus 100-year cover up as revealed a year and a half ago. couple sample links:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ry?id=11701578
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-sinking.html

occam's razor likes it because it logically addresses the situation in a direct, simple way. covers motive, methodology, etc. no planetary alignments, acts of god or tinfoil hats needed...

[StevOz]

I read it was sunk by an optical illusion.... http://www.popsci.com.au/science/did...om-the-titanic

[Shockman]

The tides are gravitational, not a chemical reaction. The gravitational fluctuation that causes high tide is caused when the bulkier sides of the bodies are facing each other. Neither the moon nor the earth are perfect as spheres, plus the moons orbit it's self causes the earth to not be perfect round. So the lack of compression caused by the gravity raises the tide there. The water is pulled toward the moon.

Edit: actually I should have said lowers the tide there. What it raises is the open sea.

[Shockman]

This is what the gravitational field of the earth looks like.

There is a documentary that I may be able to find again that shows these dimples and mounds using satellite images in motion. It's not the field like in the posted image, but a visual (from space) image sequence over a year with enough images for an extremely smooth movie.

It is in fact not just the tide that changes. This force effects solid ground as well.

---------------------------------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/vi...ce-gravity-esa

This is not the video I mentioned, but is a video made by the same team in 2009 before launch. Two satellites both measure the distance to the surface and the distance between each other (the two instruments) is maintained

[Shockman]

...the moon and sun lined up in such a way that their gravitational pulls enhanced each other. At the same time, the moon's closest approach to earth that January was the closest in 1,400 years, and the point of closest approach occurred within six minutes of the full moon. On top of that, the Earth's closest approach to the sun in a year had happened just the previous day.

I think they got it straight. I also think the project mentioned above could have helped in this idea. The movement of all the bodies in space mentioned is solid science, that was already known. The project could have clued them in on the effect it would have at the icebergs origin.

much more of interest to me is a case of simple human miscommunication plus human error plus 100-year cover up as revealed a year and a half ago. couple sample links:

Though this is speculative, I agree that it could have happened as well. I think it is unlikely that the helmsman did not know how to steer the ship though. The problem was that an iceberg was there. It was also a problem that they hit it. Of course it was a problem that they did not expect icebergs in the area.

[sleepy]

But the sun will affect evaporation and elements will respond. Palladium absorbs 900 times it's density of hydrogen at room temperature and increases it's absorption of hydrogen at higher temperatures.
Palladium swells as a result, and is suspended in water by hydrogen or by agitation or by forming complexes with other water-soluble elements and compounds common to the sea, lead, tin, silicon, organic wastes, piss, shit, etc.

When palladium swells, so does the volume of the solution that contains it.

[GSGregg]

The iceberg was actually obscured by the effects of a time vortex caused by the first Philadelphia Experiment.

All seriousness aside, though, the 'real reason' that I remember reading about (in Readers'Digest? Popular science? Omni? It's been a long time) is a combination of left rudder and reversed engines, causing the stern to swing to port; the ship's momentum therefore angled the bow toward the berg.


In other news, RINGWORLD IS UNSTABLE!! (1971)

[Shockman]

How could the sun's being responsible for chemical reaction (that happens at room temperature) be linked to the sinking in frigged water? Nor can it be responsible for tides, nor are tides not understood anyway.

I think the ship had the ability to turn, and the helmsman had the ability to make it happen. If I turned the wheel of my car to the right and started to run off the left side of the road, I would turn my wheel to the left, And this knowing it made no sense, let alone realizing my car was designed that way.

The iceberg should not have been there, but it was. It was either seen in time and action was too slow, or it probably was seen too late for action to avoid it.

The tragic part of the story is not the sinking of the ship. Of all the things I have read and watched, I have not heard anyone focus on the ship. This would not have been the case if the survivors was at or near 100%.
The tragic thing is the ship was not properly equipped for a total abandonment, and that the second stupidest thing came to exist, ... that the limited resources was not maximized in either a timely, nor efficient manor.

[Ike Savage]

@shockman,
nice posts; pleasure to read.

Originally Posted by GSGregg

All seriousness aside, though, the 'real reason' that I remember reading about (in Readers'Digest? Popular science? Omni? It's been a long time) is a combination of left rudder and reversed engines, causing the stern to swing to port; the ship's momentum therefore angled the bow toward the berg.

exactly, and this seems to fit very well with the revelations in the woman's book about a simple screwup which got covered up by the top officers.

...

funny thing about the titanic is how many things have been shown or suggested to have 'gone wrong' with it:

- poor quality metal sheeting in the hull
- poor quality rivets and pattern of riveting
- unusually large icebergs in the area
- super refraction mirage, causing the iceberg to surprise the crew
- miscommunication between the captain and helmsman about crucial steering adjustment
- helmsman error in steering / engines
- plus whatever other theories there are

assuming most of them are viable, you almost get the idea that the cosmos conspired to sink that ship... like something out of homer's oddysey.

[sleepy]

Because my good man, thermal-chemical reactions are Relative.
At frigid temperatures, the solar effects will increase hydrogen reactions.

Water expands when freezing, but in heating, the hydrogen in water causes other elements to expand, see Palladium. And heating water also expands organic complexes of carbohydrates, see seaweed or pasta.

But that doesn't mean it was the cause of the iceberg shifts, though it may have contributed to it.

[Shockman]

Thanks sleepy. As a factor for dislodging the berg at it's origin. I don't know. Maybe. I Don't see it though. As a natural factor in contribution in general perhaps, but as a catastrophic factor, I doubt it.


- compartment bulkheads not in position. Some say the design would not allow them to seal at all. Hard to believe.

[mrschultz]

They now know the steel was weaker than it should have been. Pieces have been removed from the wreak and tested. They used a cheaper and thus weaker formulation in the steel.

They knew there were icebergs in the area (they had warnings) so they shouldn't have been running at top speed.

There were 2 different steering systems in use on different types of ships, and this was the maiden voyage, in a panic the helmsman could easily have used the wrong system and turned the wheel the wrong way.

There's also the issue of reversing, causing the rudder to become less effective. Of course if it was turned the wrong way that part really doesn't matter.

The descriptions of how gravity works above has a lot of errors. Tides have nothing to do with the shapes of the Earth and Moon. It's simple gravity caused by the entire mass of the moon. The water always bulges toward the moon, with a reciprocal bulge on the opposite side of the Earth, with the low areas on the perpendicular sides.

The sun and moon can line up and do create higher than normal tides, but the influence of the sun is minor, only adding a small percent to the pull of the moon. The real reason for super tides is that the orbit of the moon is elliptical, when the moon is closer to the earth the tides are higher. When this combines with a solar alignment when the Earth is closest to the sun (December, orbit of the earth is also elliptical) you get the highest tides possible. If this happened a few months before the accident there could have been larger burgs than normal (the burg probably broke off a few months before the accident). But again, there were warnings out, they ignored them and were traveling at full speed at night.

Size of the burg doesn't really matter anyway, a smaller one would have done similar damage if struck the same way. A smaller one would have been harder to see giving less time to turn, so it might have done even more damage.

As for the bulkheads and running at speed after the impact. Have you seen diagrams of the tear in the hull? There was no chance no matter what. She was going down, bulkheads intact and going to full stop right away would have only given a little more time, not long enough to keep her up until the other ships got there.

Good steel and going slower would have saved her.

[Ike Savage]

apparently a new two-part program about the ship is airing starting sunday night at 8PM on the natty geo channel. the captains are cameron and ballard- no introductions necessary, i think.

in particular, i enjoyed this two and a half minute preview- a CGI simulation of exactly how the ship hit the berg and what happened after:
Titanic 100 - New CGI of How Titanic Sank - YouTube

[Shockman]

Originally Posted by mrschultz

They now know the steel was weaker than it should have been. Pieces have been removed from the wreak and tested. They used a cheaper and thus weaker formulation in the steel.

But was it a factor. There is no crumple zones in ships, so I doubt any gauge or grade would have bounced the ship off the berg.

Originally Posted by mrschultz

They knew there were icebergs in the area (they had warnings) so they shouldn't have been running at top speed.

Not without great visibility, that's for sure.

Originally Posted by mrschultz

There were 2 different steering systems in use on different types of ships, and this was the maiden voyage, in a panic the helmsman could easily have used the wrong system and turned the wheel the wrong way.

And then said what, "I started using the wrong method, so I might as well continue".

Originally Posted by mrschultz

There's also the issue of reversing, causing the rudder to become less effective. Of course if it was turned the wrong way that part really doesn't matter.

I never heard of the Titanic reversing. For the rudder effect to invert would require going backwards, the ship, not the prop.

Originally Posted by mrschultz

The descriptions of how gravity works above has a lot of errors. Tides have nothing to do with the shapes of the Earth and Moon. It's simple gravity caused by the entire mass of the moon. The water always bulges toward the moon, with a reciprocal bulge on the opposite side of the Earth, with the low areas on the perpendicular sides.

The sun and moon can line up and do create higher than normal tides, but the influence of the sun is minor, only adding a small percent to the pull of the moon. The real reason for super tides is that the orbit of the moon is elliptical, when the moon is closer to the earth the tides are higher. When this combines with a solar alignment when the Earth is closest to the sun (December, orbit of the earth is also elliptical) you get the highest tides possible. If this happened a few months before the accident there could have been larger burgs than normal (the burg probably broke off a few months before the accident). But again, there were warnings out, they ignored them and were traveling at full speed at night.

I agree with all that, and don't think I indicated anything else. However, gravity is a force, tide is not, tide is an effect and the effect shapes earth, and not just the ocean, but the plates as well, so I don't understand the first two sentences, when you obviously understand this.

Originally Posted by mrschultz

Size of the burg doesn't really matter anyway, a smaller one would have done similar damage if struck the same way. A smaller one would have been harder to see giving less time to turn, so it might have done even more damage.

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by mrschultz

As for the bulkheads and running at speed after the impact. Have you seen diagrams of the tear in the hull? There was no chance no matter what. She was going down, bulkheads intact and going to full stop right away would have only given a little more time, not long enough to keep her up until the other ships got there.

I can't agree with that. Not because I know otherwise, but because I don't.

Originally Posted by mrschultz

Good steel and going slower would have saved her.

Not hitting the iceberg would have saved her. I don't think speed or steel would have mattered. We are talking about a massive ship. I can't imagine how slow it would have had to be going for an iceberg to stop it without damage. It's like a train coasting to a stop. How slow would a train have to get before you can stand there and bring it to a stop buy catching it. The answer is so close to a stop that even if you had an effect, it would not look as if you did.

[GSGregg]

Originally Posted by Ike Savage

apparently a new two-part program about the ship is airing starting sunday night at 8PM on the natty geo channel. the captains are cameron and ballard- no introductions necessary, i think.

Nat Geo has good stuff. PBS ran a one-hour show a few nights ago called, "Saving the Titanic" a reenactment of the efforts of engineers and electricians to maintain power to lights and pumps, buying time for others to escape.

Originally Posted by Ike Savage

in particular, i enjoyed this two and a half minute preview- a CGI simulation of exactly how the ship hit the berg and what happened after:
Titanic 100 - New CGI of How Titanic Sank - YouTube

Nicely done---even though it refutes my recollected theory about .....

Originally Posted by GSGregg

...a combination of left rudder and reversed engines, causing the stern to swing to port; the ship's momentum therefore angled the bow toward the berg.

[Shockman]

That IS a well made and logic protruding animation.

[mrschultz]

Originally Posted by Shockman

Not hitting the iceberg would have saved her. I don't think speed or steel would have mattered. We are talking about a massive ship. I can't imagine how slow it would have had to be going for an iceberg to stop it without damage. It's like a train coasting to a stop. How slow would a train have to get before you can stand there and bring it to a stop buy catching it. The answer is so close to a stop that even if you had an effect, it would not look as if you did.

Going slower would have allowed them to turn in time. They had warnings but chose to go at full speed.

Better steel would have resulted in a smaller tear giving the bulkheads a chance to do what they were designed to do. She was designed to stay afloat with several compartments flooded. I think it was 5, so all that was needed was 2 fewer compartments torn open.

Either of those would have saved the ship, that's what I meant.

Oh, and the thing about reversing the props was not that it reversed the rudder, it made the rudder less effective, you have the ship still going forward due to it's momentum and the thrust from the props going the opposite to try and slow the ship down, this causes turbulence around the rudder making it less effective. Even reversing one prop doesn't help turn the ship any faster, that only works when the ship is slow. The theory is that if they had stayed at full speed and full rudder the ship would have turned faster and possibly missed the berg.

There was another theory that not turning and plowing straight into the burg would have only damage the first 1 or 2 compartments and allowed the ship to stay afloat. But given what we now know about the weaker than normal steel that theory is probably no longer valid.

[Shockman]

Thanks.

That makes sense. Better rudder at full speed.

Head on. I understand, but what a strange order that would have been.

Hind sight is not always 20/20 after all.