I see the refraction on the Irish sea when I'm first on the beach, and I see it much better when I am on the top floor of my house which is 30+ feet above sea level. All of the examples I showed are from that height (maybe higher) as I watch ships that are 20+ miles away which normally should never be visible, but are affected by the refraction which makes them very visible and the illusion makes them appear very close. I believe if the Californian was 10 miles or less then she would not be affected by refraction because she was too close for it to affect both ships observations, and therefore the Californian likely was 18 - 30 miles away when the Titanic went down.And who told you that the refraction is seen better from the height, Aaron? It is absolutely not the case. Sometimes (most of times?) it is seen better from the sea level. There are free books on the NET in which researchers describe situations in which they saw a mirage from the deck, and it was completely gone, when they were climbing masts. I also noticed the same occurrences.
From 1915 IIP reportThe last berg sighted this day was picked up from the forecastle deck at a distance of 21 miles and looked like a square-rigged ship under full sail.' It could not be seen from either the bridge or the crow's nest at the time
Notice also the mirage was seen from warm water and the Titanic and the Californian were both in cold water, which means that even if Marengo observed refraction from the right place and at the right time (which she did not), and even if we knew for sure that refraction was a superior mirage (and we do not), even then Marengo's observation do not help to prove there was refraction between Titanic and Californian and/or Titanic and the iceberg.Before reaching cold water we picked up a berg in a, mirage at 9" distance of 20 miles. It was first seen from the deck, and could be made out from the bridge only when the vessel settled between waves; it could not be seen at all from the crow's nest for fully 10 minutes after it was reported from deck. In about half an hour the mirage disappeared and the berg could then be seen from the bridge and crow's nest, but not from the deck. (My highlight).
As I mentioned many times already, Aaron, your pictures are of inferior mirages and Tim alleges not only a superior mirage, bur a mirage of the sea surface. I have never seen a mirage of the sea surface from high elevation. It is always seen better from the sea level.Forel ascribed the Fata Morgana to the
transition from inferior to superior mirages, without a plausible
explanation. But he recorded important geometric details: the
distance to the objects seen in Fata Morganas ranged from 10
to 30 or 40 km the optimal eye height was from 2 to
4 meters above the lake, and “a shift of a foot or two above or
below the best position in any given case is sufficient to make the
phenomenon disappear ” (my bolding)
Out of pure curiosity, how do you confirm the range they are at or should be at? How do you know they are at 20 miles plus when you are looking at them?as I watch ships that are 20+ miles away which normally should never be visible, but are affected by the refraction which makes them very visible and the illusion makes them appear very close.
An Inferior mirage and "looming" also requires a light winds.
Hi Jim,For mirage of any kind, there has to be warm air above a cold surface or cold air above a warm surface. An Inferior mirage and "looming" also requires a light winds.
I never suggested that it was, Mila. Look at the Met Book text I shared, with you. Looming is simply another form of abnormal refraction.Hi Jim,
An inferior mirage is not looming. To form looming requires surface-based temperature inversion. An inferior mirage forms, when the surface is warmer that the air above it. Once I saw an inferior and superior mirage of the same land together. It was inferior mirage on the surface and superior above it.
So far, Tim has not responded.It would be fair to ask of Tim whether he had the full log that you have at the time he wrote his book.
....the Marengo Log book entries which do not place the Marengo anywhere near where the Titanic wreck site....
Hi Sam, What do you mean?The correction for pressure and temperature under non-standard conditions is not very much, just a few minutes of arc at most .
As you see Tim connects the mirage with "icy water". Marengo was in a relatively warm water, much warmer than the air. It should matter. Who knows what kind of "refraction" Marengo observed. In addition, Dr. Young who is mentioned here, and who Tim mentioned in this very thread was not able to come up with a simulation to account for either a mirage-associated problems with the visibility of the iceberg or for "low-lying" rockets.The icy waters that night created ideal conditions for an unusual kind of mirage, according to Mr. Maltin, who owns a public relations firm in London and has written three books on the Titanic. Andrew T. Young, an astronomer and mirage specialist at San Diego State University, helped him refine his [I thought somebody suggested a super refraction back in 1992] theory. [my bolding]