What if THIS happened


Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Michael, Yes, I know what you mean with Rowe being a QM, but I was wondering that due to the urgency of the situation, if he took any real notice of a compass or of the contellations, he was busy helping out with socket signals and with the morse lamp until ordered away by Smith in collapsible 'c', and like Captain Jim said, you can't turn a ship like a car, and Rowe never reported any large arcing wake behind the Titanic.

Regarding the bows pointing northward. In my scenario I suggested that the bow section could have been held by a large piece of the keel, and that due to all the heavy and loose items hurtling forward, that this could have made the bow section twist itself underwater before breaking free of the stern. My suggestion was that if this were the case, that this could be the reason why the bows are toward the north, and not toward the west. Like I said earlier, it is only a scenario, but if this could have happened, it might be the reason why the bows are pointing toward the north.
Tests in tanks can't always be relied upon, for instance, could they perform a test using my scenario, ie; falling heavy and loose items and other debris all hurtling toward the bows, and perhaps lurching over to the starboard side of the bow section, and with a large piece of keel stubbornly holding on to the stern section, making the bow section twist underwater to break itself free from the stern. I think this would be a hard thing to try to create in a test tank, but it could have happened for real on the night.
Regards, Martin.
 
Martin, in the words of the late Dr. Richard Feynmann "If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong."

The reason for this is because experiment establishes what actually happens in a given set of conditions.

Everything being proposed here not only disagrees with experiment, it also disagrees with the actual location and orientation of the wreck as well as the whole of what the surviving officers, ratings, and even some of the passengers observed and testified to.

>>I think this would be a hard thing to try to create in a test tank, but it could have happened for real on the night.<<

There's no reason to model it when there's no reason to believe it happened and some very good reason to believe that it didn't by way of the condition of the double bottom and keel sections which show no evidence whatsoever of the sort of event you described.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Hello my friends! I am enjoying your debate. If I may join in?

Much is made of the orientation of Titanic's bow on the ocean floor

The one thing a test tank cannot do is simulate the exact sequence of a sinking through 2 miles of sea water of varying density.
All the experimenters can do is make a model which best represents the subject in it's last know form before it went below the waves. The very fact that there is disagreement as to the exact shape and condition of Titanic at the surface places a giant spanner in the works. That's the first great hurdle confronting a test tank simulation of the sinking of Titanic.
The next hurdle, is the attitude and actual hydrostatic condition of the vessel's hull at the exact moment the main deck became submerged. I'm absolutely sure the experimenters who were no doubt highly qualified Naval Architects would know of these problems. However, they, like the rest of us were not privy to this vital information.

The hull seems to have split at the surface therefore it is no longer a ship or even a ship-shaped object. it has many different facets and in itself, has many differentials as to reserved or remaining buoyancy.

So now we have this enormous bit of mis-shapen metal which has innumerable pockets of trapped air, made up of steel and mobile, low displacement material being dragged downward through layers of warm an cold water and possibly through a cold south moving bottom layer of heavier water. I know modern science is good - but that good?
How did these people know that when Titanic finally slipped beneath the surface, her list did not cause her to cork-screw or even spiral? If that happened and the momentum was carried downward with the ship; resistance would set-up severe torsional forces to act on the hull parts and protrusions resulting in further hull disintegration. We only know the bow ended up pointing where it was pointing to. We do not, for sure, know how it got to that situation. The scenario I suggest might explain why the two mating parts are not facing each other on the sea bed.

from this summation, I think it is presumptuous to say the least, to suggest that Titanic slipped below the surface with her bow pointing north and held that attitude for 2 miles, on her journey all the way down to the sea bed. In my personal opinion, she could no more have kept her head pointing in one direction all the way to the bottom than she could have done in the flat calm condition present on the surface before she sank.
 

Doug Criner

Member
Take any irregularly shaped object, and let it submerge in water (or air). The thing will tend to spin or veer off. Even a smooth, regularly shaped object, such as a marble, will descend in an unpredictable pattern due to turbulence.

And then there are subsurface currents exposed to something that sinks two miles below the ocean. Titanic's two main pieces may have spun more than one revolution during the plunge.
 
>>The one thing a test tank cannot do is simulate the exact sequence of a sinking through 2 miles of sea water of varying density.<<

Not to be obtuse, but if somebody has a better idea which can be demonstrated conclusively to model this sequence of events more accurately, then now would be the time to put it together to see what happens.

If not, all were doing is speculating in the face of disconfirming evidence instead of presenting evidence which falsifies the experiment itself.

Anybody care to step up to the plate?
 
Hello Jim, Your observations are welcome anytime my friend, it's always good to have you aboard. I know that the scenario I suggested might be a bit of a long shot, but I thought that it might explain how the bow section ended up pointing toward the north. There are numerous things that could have happened on the way down, as yourself, Steven and Doug have pointed out, and because the bow went down pointing a certain way doesn't mean that it ended up pointing the same way when it hit the bottom. I understand what Michael means, but controlled tests can't always prove that it happened like that in a 'real life' situation, so to speak.
Regards, Martin.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Hello Michael!

The last thing you are is 'Obtuse' in all the meanings of that word. I totally agree with you when you write:

"a better idea which can be demonstrated conclusively to model this sequence of events more accurately,"

For reasons I illustrated plus more than a few more that my limited scientific knowledge can hardly imagine; such a detailed experiment which would blast away all other theories for all time can only be an 'educated assessment based on experiment'.

As you know, the problem with this subject is that there are those among us who have high-jacked the sea bed attitude of the bow to prove the relationship between Titanic and Californian. There's no way on this earth that opponents of the 'facing north' theory will bow down to that!(excuse the pun) Just as there's no way on this earth that Titanic was deliberately swung round to the north and held pointing in that direction for almost 2 and a half hours without the aid of engines and rudder.

Regards,

Jim
 
Why not say it another way, there's no way on this earth that Titanic was deliberately swung back to face west and held pointing in that direction for almost 2 and a half hours without the aid of engines and rudder.

It's not just the direction she's pointing to but the location of the bow is about 1/2 mile almost due north of boilers and stern. If she was facing west all along, then the bow had to make a 90 turn to starboard before breaking free.
 

Jim Currie

Member
I will say 'it' Walter - always have , long before your time here.
My opinion for what it's worth is that Titanic swung almost due south under the hard left rudder. Smith came on the bridge as all this was happening. He didn't need to be told his ship had hit something but he did not know the extent of the damage. Once he had the full report from his 1st Officer, he took over the bridge (a thing that doesn't happen normally at sea) and brought the ship back to her original course then stopped her dead in the water by use of his engines. Meantime, his men were doing a damage assessment. While the ship was stopped, she started to do exactly the same thing as Californian did - she had retained a little of the previous momentum and continued swinging very slowly to the right. As I;ve said, ships do not stand still in the water without a little help.

I agree with your assessment of what transpired after the sinking. I do not believe the two parts of the hull separated at the surface but did so after 'swirling'? on the way down. Doesn't take too much imagination.

Jim
 
>>As you know, the problem with this subject is that there are those among us who have high-jacked the sea bed attitude of the bow to prove the relationship between Titanic and Californian<<

With all due respect, I'm not particularly interested in the Californian controversey. It's been done to death and in this case, it looks to me like little more then misdirection. The issue is how and why the bow came to be oriented in the way that it is in the present day. Whether it's convenient for the champions of the Pro-Lord/Anti-Lord people is just not my concern.

While controlled experiments are not perfect, they have the virtue of being demonsterable and repeatable. As with all good science, it also allows for the possibility of being falsified based on the weight of better evidence coming to light and experiments being carried out to see if it works.

That's why I'm asking if anybody has that better idea. If they can't, I have no real choice but to give provisional assent to what has been shown until somebody comes along with something which demonstrates that we need to rethink the whole thing.

So far, no takers.
 
>>As you know, the problem with this subject is that there are those among us who have high-jacked the sea bed attitude of the bow to prove the relationship between Titanic and Californian<<

My apologies to both Jim and Michael here; you're right, the Californian incident is off-topic--I'll cease bringing it up on this thread!

Whether the bow section planed forward and/or spiraled, whatever happened at the break-up and on its way to the bottom must have been relatively gentle to account for the small light items inside like the carafe & water glasses on a shelf which were undisturbed. For objects like these to have remained in place, the bow seems not to have adopted any extreme angles at all.
 
>>For objects like these to have remained in place, the bow seems not to have adopted any extreme angles at all.<<

I'm not so sure I'd bet the farm on that one. The carafe which Ken Marschall photographed was pretty secure in it's holder. If you take a look at the condition of the bow, notably the way it's canted downwards from the horizontal ahead of the superstructure, and the way the mud is ploughed up around it, the impact with the bottom was pretty violent.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Point taken about 'Californian' Michael. I too feel the same way but, and there is always a 'but'! you must admit, what I said about the hi-jacking is true. My reason for quoting in this way was not to bring that which shall not be spoken of to the forefront, but to head off any such attempts at the 'pass'.
In my previous post, I demonstrated how Titanic's bow might have been pointing in any direction to the right of west when it finally sank.

"While controlled experiments are not perfect, they have the virtue of being demonsterable and repeatable."

True, but in-built false assumptions are also repeated. As I pointed out: there was a great deal of information concerning the moment when the ship went below the surface that we can never know about, therefore lack of this is the limiting factor for any test tank experiment.

As for things staying in place: I've never seen the picture in question. However, cups, glasses,carafes, decanters and the like would be stowed in specially designed shelves when not in use. These would be mostly made of wood and designed to keep the objects safely stowed when the ship was pitching and rolling in a seaway. When Titanic listed heavily to port, unsecured table, any objects on tables and shelves would move or slide toward the port side depending on the angle of list.

Jim
 
I believe she separated on the surface cause a number of people in the boats saw the stern come back on an even keel and the bow was gone. It was a minute or two after that the stern tipped forward and then went under.
 
Hello again to you all, Yes, I know that the Californian debate is now very long in the tooth, and that there must be many here on ET that are getting a little 'cheesed off' with it all (now for another BUT), but, let's not forget that there are many new people that come onto this site to gain information and knowledge, and after some while they may decide to become members so that they can ask questions and post their opinions on the subject. I myself spent years reading the various articles and posts on ET before deciding on becoming a member, and even after becoming a member, I still spent a few years reading before sending my first post. So even though some might be getting a little frayed around the edges with the Californian incident, I think it is only fair that it should still be debated so that new members and readers who come to ET can gain the information that they are seeking.

There is a good picture of the plates on the sea floor, it shows them still neatly stacked 'as they were'. The wooden shelving has rotted away and left them in a ghostly stack on the seabed. I will see if I can find it on my computer and post it up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top