It is not my own theory.Once again I believe I'm being accused of inventing evidence by suggesting that the light airs and calms reported by 2/O Stone in his report to Capt.Lord was the cause of some erratic swinging of Californian by a person pushing their own pet theory. Well let's take it on in the new thread I opened here: Was Californian Caught in an Eddy?.
However, as we all know Mr Groves and other Californian’s officers were able to see the Titanic’s navigational lights, including the sidelights long before anybody from the Titanic first noticed the Californian.I also believe that meteorological conditions were changing over time, from very clear (code 8) to exceptionally clear (code 9) and back again. When exceptionally clear, Boxhall was able to make out the sidelight with the naked eye, and that is what stood out in his memory.
I really don't think you know the difference between inventing evidence and interpreting evidence. Evidence is what was given, interpretation attempts to explain.All questions I listed above are easily explained by the Californian drifting in an eddy. This eddy speculation interprets evidence, it does not invent it to fit the narrative.
If you had actually read the centennial book you would have your answer. Fig. 10-13.However, as we all know Mr Groves and other Californian’s officers were able to see the Titanic’s navigational lights, including the sidelights long before anybody from the Titanic first noticed the Californian.
So were these mythical meteorological conditions affecting the visibility in only one direction?
Could you please explain?
Well let's test that shall we. We have evidence from three mutually supporting sources (Groves, Stone, Gibson) that says that Titanic was SSE by compass at 12:10.This eddy speculation interprets evidence.
I do not remember every figure in every book I have ever read. Why don’t you copy the figure here?If you had actually read the centennial book you would have your answer. Fig. 10-13
They might have seen reflections of it.What you claim from this evidence is that two of the three were actually green flares from Boxhall's boat. Neither Stone nor Gibson said that the character of any of these were different, only that they were seen on different relative bearings. A rocket goes up several undred feet into the air and explodes into stars which then descend and flame out within a few seconds. A hand-held flare does not go up and they burn for a much, much longer period of time. There is no evidence at all that Gibson or Stone saw anything that resembled flares, let alone bright green flares. That claim of yours is not interpretation or speculation, but wishful thinking.
Mr. Stone himself testified that the bearings were only approximate.We have evidence from Stone that the steamer they were watching disappeared SW1/2W by compass.
We have evidence from Stone that the signals seen at 3:20 were bearing about SSW.
We have no such evidence, Captain Rostron testified he observed the first flare at 2:40 a.m. I'm not sure what Titanic's time it was.From Rostron and Boxhall we have evidence that Carpathia reached Boxhall's boat about 3/4 hours after those signal sightings.
We have no such evidence.From Bisset we have evidence that Carpathia had been making about 15-16 knots max.
I am not very good on reading the charts. What exactly is wrong with it? Is it a big distance the Californian had to travel to be in the position? As I explained above Mr Stone's bearings were approximate. Besides the lifeboats could have drifted in their own set of currents too.Putting all these pieces of evidence together, the picture that you get for Californian being caught in an eddy such that all the evidence fits is shown in the picture below.
Now if you Alex, or Mila,
I see. I responded your prior post before reading this one. So it is the distance. OK, I'll post the images later when I will get them.But to me the simple conclusion is obvious. For all the pieces to fit what was seen and stated in evidence, the Californian had to be caught in an eddy that changes its position over a 3 hour period as shown above. The speed of rotation would have to be more than 10 knots. Good luck finding one that could match that in the real world.
By the way, the angles and distances drawn are to scale, and since during all this time Californian was stopped, the field of ice directly to her east about 1/4 mile off had to move with her. I can also demonstrate how this scene would have affected the swinging of Titanic, but I'll leave that for another time.
Of course this is not a theory, its only speculation, right? I kind of like the speculation that there were multiple mystery vessels about that can explain all the appearances better.
I really do not see how Captain Rostron could have told a passenger that he saw the first flare when he was 10 miles away but then testified he saw it, when he was 20 miles away.Dave Gittins has interpreted this evidence, nay challenged it, because the Carpathia could not possibly have seen Boxhall's green flares at 2.40am. Dave explained that the Carpathia could not have gone as fast as Rostron's 17 or 17.5 knots speed. Rostron did not see Boxhall's green flares till he was 2 hours 40 minutes into his rescue run. So he first saw Boxhall's green flares some approximately 30 minutes later.
Gibson didn't say that. Gibson responded to a question that contained several parts.If the flashes were Carpathia’s rockets, why Mr. Gibson said they were going up?
Some of the bearings he gave were approximate, as were Gibson's no doubt. By the bearing of SW 1/2 W was down to 1/2 point precision. That is much tighter than simply saying "about".Mr. Stone himself testified that the bearings were only approximate.
Could you please explain why in the chart your SSE arrow is pointing to SE?Well let's test that shall we. We have evidence from three mutually supporting sources (Groves, Stone, Gibson) that says that Titanic was SSE by compass at 12:10.
We have evidence from Stone that the steamer they were watching disappeared SW1/2W by compass.
We have evidence from Stone that the signals seen at 3:20 were bearing about SSW.
We have evidence from Gibson that the difference in bearings of those signals seen were 2 points.
We have evidence from Durrant with supporting evidence from Rostron that Carpathia was firing rockets about the same time those signal were seen by Stone and Gibson.
From Rostron and Boxhall we have evidence that Carpathia reached Boxhall's boat about 3/4 hours after those signal sightings.
From Bisset we have evidence that Carpathia had been making about 15-16 knots max.
From Lord we have evidence that the magnetic variation was about 2 points west (and this can be confirmed by other means).
From Rostron we have evidence Carpathia was heading N52W true (about N30W magnetic).
Putting all these pieces of evidence together, the picture that you get for Californian being caught in an eddy such that all the evidence fits is shown in the picture below.
View attachment 44833
The ice fields and icebergs are transported by the eddies. However, relatively small eddies that form in the frontal regions between the ice fields and the ocean will not transport the entire ice fields.Alex, in the previous thread you wrote: "These eddies make objects that are caught in them to rotate. They will not move the ice fields." Are you really sure about that? The article that you provided a link for had this to say:
(My bolding where shown and units conversions in brackets I added.)
>> The anticyclonic circulation is pronounced in the field of the drifting ice in the bay in June. Several large ice floes were captured by this circulation and came full circle, which made it possible to determine the period of eddy circulation and velocity of the surface current. The circulation diameter was about 40 km [21.6 nautical miles].The period of circulation in the eddy was about 3 days.The average velocity of the current on the surface was about 0.3 m/s [0.58 knots]. <<
I see.It's pointing SSE by compass from the evidence given. That's why I also included the compass rose with a 2 point variation west. Print and check it if you like.
Yes, small eddies will not transport the entire icefield, but for the change in compass bearings that were given in evidence, you cannot be talking about a small, localized eddy. You are suggesting a relatively large eddy that must have a very fast rotational speed. The movements reported in these micro eddies are very small, some described as meters per day.However, relatively small eddies that form in the frontal regions between the ice fields and the ocean will not transport the entire ice fields.
The track of Carpathia on the chart that I put up is on a heading of N30W magnetic. That accounts for the 2 point variation as shown on the compass rose. The true heading would be N52W true that was given in evidence by Rostron.The track of the Carpathia is also shown with deviation?
You forgot to include the sentence preceding the one quoted:While the ship was swinging left slowly, the compass swung
to the left rapidly about one point.
The account you cited was from steward Hart. Hart went away in boat #15, quite late in the sinking timeframe. He said he saw the two masthead lights to the north before and after he went away in the boat. He was on the starboard side of the ship when he left in boat #15 for sure. Yet Lightoller, Boxhall, Lowe, Rowe, and many more said this steamer was off Titanic's port bow. I'm sure our mystery ship advocate friends would claim yet another two-masted mystery ship on Titanic's starboard bow in addition to the one on her port bow that was there at the same time. Or, as one of these advocates once wrote, 'What does a steward know about port and starboard?' I do know there is no double star in the northern sky that could be taken for masthead lights of a ship.There are some other eyewitnesses' accounts that collaborate the change in bearing.
I'm not the one who said that the eddy theory, or speculation as you now seem to call it, should account for the precise change provided by Stone. It was you who wrote that the eddy theory can explain all the events described? What I showed is simply this. For change in bearings that were reported to be explained by Californian being caught in eddy, would require a movement of Californian as shown, more or less, in the diagram I posted. It would imply a relatively large sized eddy with a fairly rapid rotational speed that simply does not exist in nature.you do not believe that there was any change in the bearing at all. Then why do you insist that the eddy’s theory should be able to account for the precise change provided by Mr. Stone?