IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 21st October 2021, 06:36 AM   #281
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Yes, but only the part below the actual waterline -- not the blue paint and not the Plimsoll line -- that has any bearing on the flood rate such a hole could sustain if the injury occurred on the surface. You're the one trying to tell us this is the hole that gave us the flood rate that caused the ship to sink so quickly. Show me the numbers.



Except that we can see in the photos and reconstructed images where the hole is. We can see for ourselves how it relates to the water line no matter how many towels an expedition says they saw.
If the water came into the vessel via the hole in the starboard, then that would be a provable source of the ingress of water. It has never been proven the car ramp was ever open.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 06:36 AM   #282
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,557
Just to add on the pitching

Hull form at the bow is also a factor. A flared bow will tend to ride a wave better but increase the actual pitching. A bow with no flare will cut in to the wave which reduces pitching but makes the ship 'wet'.
A passenger ship is only moderately flared to reduce pitching for passenger comfort but it does tend to bury in to the wave more.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 06:37 AM   #283
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Soz, the car decks are decks no. 2 and 3. In effect, the JAIC is claiming that when the vessel capsized onto its starboard side, decks 4 and 5 immediately filled with water, the windows having smashed, battened down the cabin doors (cabins themselves divided into literally hundreds). This defies belief as a ship cannot float on its superstructure. Once it capsized to the side, it would have turtled within minutes ceteris paribus.
What is your evidence for this?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 06:39 AM   #284
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
The bow visor was above the waterline, right?

So, how would explosions designed to cause bow visor failure be below the waterline?

If the natural failure of the bow visor couldn't explain the sinking, then neither could the intentional destruction of the bow visor -- unless it produced other substantial damage which would be current today.

Do have some consistency, Vixen. If you deny that the former explains a sinking, you must deny that the latter does too. Pretty simple logic.
I think what the advocates might be claiming is that the Swedish navy used explosives to remove the bow visor, for whatever reason.

If it was a military attack by speznats, then the bow area certainly would be a target for them, bearing in mind their favoured tactic is to strike a vessel in several places to sink it for sure.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 06:40 AM   #285
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 20,941
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If the water came into the vessel via the hole in the starboard, then that would be a provable source of the ingress of water. It has never been proven the car ramp was ever open.
It has never been proven that the hole in starboard side was made while the ship was on the surface. And you're certainly incapable of telling us whether a hole in that part of the ship could take on water fast enough to sink the ship in 30 minutes.

Are you implying the car deck did not ship water?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 06:41 AM   #286
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 20,941
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Once it capsized to the side, it would have turtled within minutes ceteris paribus.
Show us the evidence for this claim, please. And no, we do not accept Anders Björkman as an authority.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 06:42 AM   #287
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,557
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I think what the advocates might be claiming is that the Swedish navy used explosives to remove the bow visor, for whatever reason.

If it was a military attack by speznats, then the bow area certainly would be a target for them, bearing in mind their favoured tactic is to strike a vessel in several places to sink it for sure.
How many ships have the 'Spetznaz' sunk?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 06:43 AM   #288
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
You just sank her battleship.

Pretty much how I pictured it in my head. With the ramp open? Jesus, they never had a chance.
If the ramp was open.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 06:43 AM   #289
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 20,941
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I think what the advocates might be claiming is that the Swedish navy used explosives to remove the bow visor, for whatever reason.
Do you believe what these "advocates" are claiming?

Quote:
If it was a military attack by speznats, then the bow area certainly would be a target for them, bearing in mind their favoured tactic is to strike a vessel in several places to sink it for sure.
So you're saying these brilliant ex-Soviet agents knew that blowing off the bow visor would sink the ship? You just got done telling us such a thing wouldn't work because no water would get past the ramp. Your wild flip-flops are happening in a shorter and shorter space of time.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 06:45 AM   #290
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 20,941
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If the ramp was open.
Was water observed in the car deck, yes or no?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 07:06 AM   #291
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,047
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If the water came into the vessel via the hole in the starboard, then that would be a provable source of the ingress of water. It has never been proven the car ramp was ever open.
If this reasoning works, we can eliminate explosives at the bow visor as the cause. Do you agree?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 07:07 AM   #292
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,047
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I think what the advocates might be claiming is that the Swedish navy used explosives to remove the bow visor, for whatever reason.



If it was a military attack by speznats, then the bow area certainly would be a target for them, bearing in mind their favoured tactic is to strike a vessel in several places to sink it for sure.
Would such strikes be above the waterline?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 07:09 AM   #293
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,047
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If the water came into the vessel via the hole in the starboard, then that would be a provable source of the ingress of water. It has never been proven the car ramp was ever open.
That drawing by a survivor that you use to argue the ramp was still up shows water gushing around the sides of the ramp. Doesn't that matter?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 07:20 AM   #294
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
What is your evidence for this?
The negative buoyancy and negative shift in the centre of gravity. Imagine you are walking along. Your body's centre of gravity keeps you perfectly balanced. Then imagine an unseen hole in the ground introduces an element of instability in that it causes your right foot to miss its stride. Your centre of gravity is no longer balanced, pitching you to one side, causing you to either stumble, to use your arms, shoulders and other side of the body to regain balance, or you fall over completely. You do not remain in a state of inertia. Something has to give.

London John's fond belief The Herald of Free Enterprise was forever fated to lie on its side, unhindered by the bank it lay on, shows continues to cause amusement.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 07:20 AM   #295
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It certainly would have entirely sank eventually as the air in the superstructure was replaced by water seeping in. As with the MS Jan Heweliusz it surely would have floated turtle after capsizing for quite a while in open sea. The issue with the Estonia is how suddenly it sank completely. As a comparator, the Wilhelm Gustloff took circa 45 minutes and the Titanic over two hours.

You don't know what you're talking about.

And FYI - once again - your "displacement of air" gambit is both ignorant and incorrect. The cause - the only cause - of ships sinking is if the total mass of the vessel at the moment of sinking exceeds the buoyancy limit of the vessel at the moment of sinking.

As I've already pointed out to you twice now, by way of an example: the placement of a relatively small volume of an extremely heavy substance would cause a ship to sink like a stone - irrespective of the fact that there would have been almost the same volume of "air in the superstructure" before and after the weights were added. If the addition of the weights meant that the total mass of the ship now exceeded its buoyancy limit, it would sink. With a hull full of air.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 07:22 AM   #296
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 27,177
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It certainly would have entirely sank eventually as the air in the superstructure was replaced by water seeping in. As with the MS Jan Heweliusz it surely would have floated turtle after capsizing for quite a while in open sea. The issue with the Estonia is how suddenly it sank completely. As a comparator, the Wilhelm Gustloff took circa 45 minutes and the Titanic over two hours.
You've been asked to explain why many times, but have never even attempted to give an answer.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 07:25 AM   #297
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
It has never been proven that the hole in starboard side was made while the ship was on the surface. And you're certainly incapable of telling us whether a hole in that part of the ship could take on water fast enough to sink the ship in 30 minutes.

Are you implying the car deck did not ship water?
There was water on the car deck but by all accounts that was quite normal in rainy weather. One of the crew on the Estonia, said he saw water up to the car tyres. Even the JAIC said that even if the car decks were filled with a maximum volume of water, that would not of itself be enough to capsize the boat .
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 07:26 AM   #298
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Show us the evidence for this claim, please. And no, we do not accept Anders Björkman as an authority.
We are referencing Archimedes here.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 07:34 AM   #299
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Do you believe what these "advocates" are claiming?



So you're saying these brilliant ex-Soviet agents knew that blowing off the bow visor would sink the ship? You just got done telling us such a thing wouldn't work because no water would get past the ramp. Your wild flip-flops are happening in a shorter and shorter space of time.
A multi-pronged attack was the Soviet leitmotiv.

Even the British Royal Navy used to employ more than one form of attack: double-headed hammers and cannonballs to sink a ship in days of yore.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 07:36 AM   #300
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,047
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Soz, the car decks are decks no. 2 and 3. In effect, the JAIC is claiming that when the vessel capsized onto its starboard side, decks 4 and 5 immediately filled with water, the windows having smashed, battened down the cabin doors (cabins themselves divided into literally hundreds). This defies belief as a ship cannot float on its superstructure. Once it capsized to the side, it would have turtled within minutes ceteris paribus.
Could you please show me where JAIC claimed that the windows on decks 4 and 5 were smashed? It's a long report and a cursory glance wasn't fruitful.

Thanks.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 07:36 AM   #301
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
If this reasoning works, we can eliminate explosives at the bow visor as the cause. Do you agree?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
No, because a professor in Materials Science (Westermann) and three other metallurgy labs (Braidwood) have found evidence of damage in the metal structure consistent with explosives deformation.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 07:38 AM   #302
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Would such strikes be above the waterline?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Using the Wilhelm Gustloff as an example: certainly. Perhaps more by accident than design.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 07:41 AM   #303
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 20,941
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
A multi-pronged attack was the Soviet leitmotiv.

Even the British Royal Navy used to employ more than one form of attack: double-headed hammers and cannonballs to sink a ship in days of yore.
Doesn't address my question.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 07:42 AM   #304
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,047
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
There was water on the car deck but by all accounts that was quite normal in rainy weather. One of the crew on the Estonia, said he saw water up to the car tyres. Even the JAIC said that even if the car decks were filled with a maximum volume of water, that would not of itself be enough to capsize the boat .
I'd be interested in where JAIC said this as well. Thanks again.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 07:43 AM   #305
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
That drawing by a survivor that you use to argue the ramp was still up shows water gushing around the sides of the ramp. Doesn't that matter?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
He shows it gushing in at the sides. He doesn't show the top open, or water coming in at the top. Videos and photos clearly show a red mattress and various bedding near the car ramp, which were obviously used by the crew to stem water leaking in and which the JAIC weirdly describes as some kind of random clothing storage kept in the car deck (What...?).
Attached Images
File Type: jpg car deck mattress.jpg (22.2 KB, 2 views)
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 07:43 AM   #306
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 20,941
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
No, because a professor in Materials Science (Westermann) and three other metallurgy labs (Braidwood) have found evidence of damage in the metal structure consistent with explosives deformation.
Asked and answered. Claims made by others on the basis of Westermann's findings are not the same as claims made by Westermann. Westermann explicitly declined to endorse the explosives theory. Her claims showed little more than the signs of welded construction.

You report Braidwood via Wilson, and the actual lab results are not known. And as previously shown, the alleged findings are consistent with a number of things.

Last edited by JayUtah; 21st October 2021 at 07:52 AM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 07:45 AM   #307
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 20,941
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
We are referencing Archimedes here.
No, we are not. Archimedes discusses buoyancy, not stability. How many times are you going to keep trying to conflate these two dissimilar topics? We know the "ship will inevitably turn turtle" comes from Bjorkman and only from him. Do you think we don't know where you're getting your misinformation?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 07:46 AM   #308
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
You don't know what you're talking about.

And FYI - once again - your "displacement of air" gambit is both ignorant and incorrect. The cause - the only cause - of ships sinking is if the total mass of the vessel at the moment of sinking exceeds the buoyancy limit of the vessel at the moment of sinking.

As I've already pointed out to you twice now, by way of an example: the placement of a relatively small volume of an extremely heavy substance would cause a ship to sink like a stone - irrespective of the fact that there would have been almost the same volume of "air in the superstructure" before and after the weights were added. If the addition of the weights meant that the total mass of the ship now exceeded its buoyancy limit, it would sink. With a hull full of air.
The Estonia had a total buoyancy equivalent to 18,000 tonnes in its hull.

Even the JAIC admit a car deck full off water would not be enough to cause it to capsize.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 07:46 AM   #309
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 20,941
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
He shows it gushing in at the sides. He doesn't show the top open, or water coming in at the top.
Irrelevant. The evidence shows the car ramp was not sufficient to keep water out. What happens when the car deck floods to a small degree, regardless of the source? How does that affect roll stability?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 07:48 AM   #310
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 20,941
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The Estonia had a total buoyancy equivalent to 18,000 tonnes in its hull.
Oh, do show us this math.

Quote:
Even the JAIC admit a car deck full off water would not be enough to cause it to capsize.
Every single investigative body that has studied the sinking of a car ferry notes the effect of the undivided car deck on stability and flood rate. Are you smarter than all of them?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 07:51 AM   #311
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 20,941
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
...and negative shift in the centre of gravity.
What is a "negative shift in the centre of gravity?" Show me what that math looks like.

Quote:
You do not remain in a state of inertia. Something has to give.
Now imagine that a significant contributor to a ship's center of gravity is water governed by the free surface effect. How will changing the orientation of the container of that water affect the center of gravity? How will compartmentalization of that container alter that effect?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 07:51 AM   #312
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,729
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I'd be interested in where JAIC said this as well. Thanks again.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Section 12.6.1 of the Final Report:
“Even though the list developed rapidly, the water on the car deck would not alone be
sufficient to make the ship capsize and lose its survivability
. As long as the hull was intact
and watertight below and above the car deck, the residual stability with water on the car deck
would not have been significantly changed at large heel angles (figure 12.12). Capsize could
only have been completed through water entering other areas of the vessel.”
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 07:54 AM   #313
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 20,941
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Section 12.6.1 of the Final Report:
“Even though the list developed rapidly, the water on the car deck would not alone be
sufficient to make the ship capsize and lose its survivability
. As long as the hull was intact
and watertight below and above the car deck, the residual stability with water on the car deck
would not have been significantly changed at large heel angles (figure 12.12). Capsize could
only have been completed through water entering other areas of the vessel.”
That doesn't say the car deck could be full of water and not cause capsize. They're talking about the water they observed or estimated to be there, not the ultimate scenario. And they do put conditions on their estimate of stability.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 08:02 AM   #314
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The negative buoyancy and negative shift in the centre of gravity. Imagine you are walking along. Your body's centre of gravity keeps you perfectly balanced. Then imagine an unseen hole in the ground introduces an element of instability in that it causes your right foot to miss its stride. Your centre of gravity is no longer balanced, pitching you to one side, causing you to either stumble, to use your arms, shoulders and other side of the body to regain balance, or you fall over completely. You do not remain in a state of inertia. Something has to give.
Oh good lord. It just gets better and better*.

Your musings on the interaction between a centre of gravity, balance and buoyancy, and the way you translate your musings on to what you believe must have happened to the Estonian, are scientifically-illiterate. Please don't insult us with these horrible attempts at justification/rationalisation of your moribund PoV.



Quote:
London John's fond belief The Herald of Free Enterprise was forever fated to lie on its side, unhindered by the bank it lay on, shows continues to cause amusement.

Ehm..... what now? Are you claiming that the HOFE would have done something other than lie on its side in perpetuity, had it not been dismantled for scrap? Or are you claiming that had the sandbank not "intervened", the HOFE would necessarily have turned upside-down in the water, rather than sinking in a 90-degree-capsized attitude?

Because either way, you're wrong. I'm glad, however, that you find your own scientific ignorance amusing.




* More and more embarrassing.

Last edited by LondonJohn; 21st October 2021 at 08:07 AM.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 08:14 AM   #315
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 995
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
TImagine you are walking along. Your body's centre of gravity keeps you perfectly balanced. Then imagine an unseen hole in the ground introduces an element of instability in that it causes your right foot to miss its stride. Your centre of gravity is no longer balanced, pitching you to one side, causing you to either stumble, to use your arms, shoulders and other side of the body to regain balance, or you fall over completely. You do not remain in a state of inertia. Something has to give.
This is utter nonsense. Your center of gravity does not keep you balanced. If you stumble, your center of gravity does not become unbalanced.

What do you think happens to your center of gravity when you stumble? I'd be very interested in your answer.

What the heck do you mean by a 'negative shift' in one's center of gravity?

Last edited by whoanellie; 21st October 2021 at 08:15 AM.
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 08:26 AM   #316
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,047
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
He shows it gushing in at the sides. He doesn't show the top open, or water coming in at the top. Videos and photos clearly show a red mattress and various bedding near the car ramp, which were obviously used by the crew to stem water leaking in and which the JAIC weirdly describes as some kind of random clothing storage kept in the car deck (What...?).
Okay, so undeniably, water came in gushing from the sides of the ramp at some point of time. Now, "gushing in" isn't the sort of problem that the mattresses would be there to prevent. They may have slowed a leaking visor, but not one in which water gushed around the ramp.

Hence, whether the ramp was up the entire time or not, an unusually large amount of water was coming in from the bow. Agreed?
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 08:34 AM   #317
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,047
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Section 12.6.1 of the Final Report:
“Even though the list developed rapidly, the water on the car deck would not alone be
sufficient to make the ship capsize and lose its survivability
. As long as the hull was intact
and watertight below and above the car deck, the residual stability with water on the car deck
would not have been significantly changed at large heel angles (figure 12.12). Capsize could
only have been completed through water entering other areas of the vessel.”

Thank you.

[Deleted incorrect discussion -- I looked at the source]

Last edited by phiwum; 21st October 2021 at 08:39 AM.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 08:54 AM   #318
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 20,941
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Imagine you are walking along. Your body's centre of gravity keeps you perfectly balanced. Then imagine an unseen hole in the ground introduces an element of instability in that it causes your right foot to miss its stride. Your centre of gravity is no longer balanced, pitching you to one side, causing you to either stumble...
None of this is actual physics. Nothing's center of gravity "keeps it perfectly balanced." An object may be angularly stationary if, for example, the reactive force to gravity acts through the center of gravity (a zero-length moment arm), and there are no other moments to accommodate. The location of the center of gravity is one parameter to an angular stability problem, but it is not something that, by itself, guarantees or generates angular stability or instability.

Bipedal locomotion is a metastable state of constantly moving the center of gravity forward from the locus of the reactive force and generating a forward pitch moment. Then it changes the locus of the reactive force (i.e., which foot is bearing the weight) to convert the pitch moment into forward motion. If you lose your footing, then the state stops being metastable and becomes unstable; there is an uncorrected pitch moment and you might fall.

Please stop trying to teach people physics. You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. You're just throwing words around that you may have vaguely remembered from your "five years of physics" as a child. But you aren't fooling anyone into thinking you actually have something to teach others.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 09:06 AM   #319
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Thank you.

[Deleted incorrect discussion -- I looked at the source]

But as has been explained (to Vixen) several times already in these threads - and as the official investigation understood properly* - ships such as these simply aren't designed to have hulls that are internally watertight. In fact, it would be a pretty severe hindrance to a passenger- and vehicle-carrying ship if it had to partition and seal off every internal area of the hull.

And that's precisely why, once the water had started flooding onto the vehicle deck via the now-compromised bow opening, it immediately began to find its way down through the internal structure of the ship - via stairwells, ventilation shafts and other openings.

In the end, the combined mass of seawater on the vehicle deck plus seawater that had pooled lower down in the hull was sufficient to pull the ship so far down in the water that sinking became the inevitable outcome. At the same time, the un-baffled water on the vehicle deck severely destabilised the ship (which had set off with imperfect trim in any event), precipitating the capsize which greatly sped up the loss of the vessel.


* It goes without saying that the official investigation understood this properly, since they knew 1) that the ship sank, and 2) that the cause of its sinking was the broken bow opening mechanism.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2021, 09:09 AM   #320
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
None of this is actual physics. Nothing's center of gravity "keeps it perfectly balanced." An object may be angularly stationary if, for example, the reactive force to gravity acts through the center of gravity (a zero-length moment arm), and there are no other moments to accommodate. The location of the center of gravity is one parameter to an angular stability problem, but it is not something that, by itself, guarantees or generates angular stability or instability.

Bipedal locomotion is a metastable state of constantly moving the center of gravity forward from the locus of the reactive force and generating a forward pitch moment. Then it changes the locus of the reactive force (i.e., which foot is bearing the weight) to convert the pitch moment into forward motion. If you lose your footing, then the state stops being metastable and becomes unstable; there is an uncorrected pitch moment and you might fall.

Please stop trying to teach people physics. You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. You're just throwing words around that you may have vaguely remembered from your "five years of physics" as a child. But you aren't fooling anyone into thinking you actually have something to teach others.

I'm here to instruct you that if your centre of inertial volume becomes either greater or less than your electric field velocity (in pounds per square inch), you'll fall down an open manhole.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:55 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.