The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Vixen]

And yet in a Shroud thread, after informing us of your extensive training in statistics you confidently stated



link http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10755544#post10755544

Now, an undergrad in a statistics intro course might make this mistake, but someone who had substantial statistics training and had used it as part of a masters thesis would know the correct figure is 66%; this is fundamental knowledge.

In the context of the physics howlers you've made in this thread, can you begin to see why we doubt your bona fides?

I meant 50% of the population were to the left of the curve and 50% to the right. Silly me, I wrote within +/-1sd which of course is incorrect. Doh!

 

[JayUtah]

I meant 50% of the population were to the left of the curve and 50% to the right. Silly me, I wrote within +/-1sd which of course is incorrect. Doh!

Yes, and it's not the kind of mistake a real expert in statistics is expected to make. Whether statistics or physics or scientific methodology, or all the other things you've insinuated to be expert at, you keep making colossally fundamental blunders. And we're supposed to pretend these are just innocent mistakes and not evidence of a lack of proficiency.

 

[LondonJohn]

The number of passenger survivors who heard crashes in addition to those who heard 'bangs' and/or crashes is at least 34 out of 79.

It is possible that those passengers on the lowest decks, who paradoxically seem to have got out faster than many - although those on the upper decks had a much improved probability of getting out alive - heard the bow visor 'banging on the bulkhead like a chimpanzee' as the lowest deck cabins were towards the front of the vessel. However, that doesn't prove that the bow visor fell off or came loose BEFORE the series of possible explosions (as espoused by Braidwood et al). The conclusion that the bow visor came loose/fell off because of a few strong waves - when the Baltic is a wavy sea and the designers would have allowed for this factor - is rather like claiming you crashed your car because your wing mirror came loose, as evidenced that it is lying on the ground a few metres away from the collision you were in.

But the ongoing problem, wrt theories such as a collision/ramming, bomb or torpedo strike, is one of causation and duration.

See, a high proportion of those passengers speak of repeated bangs, of a similar tone and volume, over many minutes.

And unfortunately for anyone trying to shoehorn in collisions/bombs/torpedoes, there are two fundamental reasons why the testimony I outlined in the previous paragraph above:

1) Had the ship actually been rammed, bombed or torpedoed, then passengers would have heard/experienced the initial impact/explosion very differently from any other noises. Yet nobody testifies anything like that, along the lines of "out of nowhere, I heard/experienced a loud bang* and the whole ship shuddering, then after that I heard repeated continuous banging noises that were different in nature than the initial bang(s)".

2) So, while most of the passengers' recollections were/are incompatible with the ship having been rammed, bombed or torpedoed, those testimonies are actually compatible with the scenario in which the bow visor broke free on one side, banging against the side of the hull for several minutes (causing the multiple metallic bangs described by many of the survivors) before detaching totally and fatally compromising the bow ramp in the process; then cars/trucks/lorries crashing into each other and into the side of the now-listing hull once they became at least partially buoyant on account of all the seawater flooding the vehicle deck.


* Or, being generous, three or four loud bangs (if, for example, there had been more than one bomb planted and detonated)

 

[Vixen]

Yes, and it's not the kind of mistake a real expert in statistics is expected to make. Whether statistics or physics or scientific methodology, or all the other things you've insinuated to be expert at, you keep making colossally fundamental blunders. And we're supposed to pretend these are just innocent mistakes and not evidence of a lack of proficiency.

If it makes you overjoyed to see a simple error have at it.

 

[GlennB]

From the start of the First Form to the end of the Fifth Form. Can't remember about the calculus in Physics but we certainly had to do it for Maths.

That would be to 'O' level, taken at age 16 or so. What did you study pre-uni for 'A' level prior to your psychology degree? That would typically be 3 subjects studied for 2 years to a significantly higher level than at 'O' level.

 

[Vixen]

But the ongoing problem, wrt theories such as a collision/ramming, bomb or torpedo strike, is one of causation and duration.

See, a high proportion of those passengers speak of repeated bangs, of a similar tone and volume, over many minutes.

And unfortunately for anyone trying to shoehorn in collisions/bombs/torpedoes, there are two fundamental reasons why the testimony I outlined in the previous paragraph above:

1) Had the ship actually been rammed, bombed or torpedoed, then passengers would have heard/experienced the initial impact/explosion very differently from any other noises. Yet nobody testifies anything like that, along the lines of "out of nowhere, I heard/experienced a loud bang* and the whole ship shuddering, then after that I heard repeated continuous banging noises that were different in nature than the initial bang(s)".

2) So, while most of the passengers' recollections were/are incompatible with the ship having been rammed, bombed or torpedoed, those testimonies are actually compatible with the scenario in which the bow visor broke free on one side, banging against the side of the hull for several minutes (causing the multiple metallic bangs described by many of the survivors) before detaching totally and fatally compromising the bow ramp in the process; then cars/trucks/lorries crashing into each other and into the side of the now-listing hull once they became at least partially buoyant on account of all the seawater flooding the vehicle deck.


* Or, being generous, three or four loud bangs (if, for example, there had been more than one bomb planted and detonated)

What you don't understand is that the conclusion that the bow visor was banging on the hull, is also just a theory. Nobody saw the visor doing this. Nobody saw the visor fall off. Nobody saw the visor was missing as of the time of the initial interview. Over time, after six or seven interviews and several years, three of the ship's crew, Sillaste, Treu and Linde came round to allegedly saying 'I saw the bow visor was missing' according to the JAIC in the third person. The problem with this type of interview pressure is that there is a danger of false memory.

The evidence for a collision is, of course, the damage to the starboard side.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The evidence for a collision is, of course, the damage to the starboard side.

damage that doesn't look like collision damage and is anyway above the waterline.

 

[JayUtah]

If it makes you overjoyed to see a simple error have at it.

Joy has nothing to do with it, and these are not just "simple" errors but errors in the fundamental principles of the various fields in which you claim expertise. You responded to a rebuttal by claiming to know more about statistics than your critics. It is clear you do not, not just because you mistook the nature of the standard deviation, but because you conflate statistical modeling with various modes of inquiry.

 

[JayUtah]

From the start of the First Form to the end of the Fifth Form.

So while you were a child, then. You appear to have had as much primary-school education in physics as every other person in the U.K. at that time and cannot be considered especially qualified in it.

Can't remember about the calculus in Physics...

Unfortunately that matters. The physics taught in primary schools is a version formulated without the advantage of calculus. As such it is well suited for solving a small class of well-formed problems, but not for conveying actual understanding. Beginning in college, the version of classical mechanics that is taught there requires calculus, as Sir Isaac himself first formulated it. He had to invent calculus first so that he could express the relationships in their proper form. Nowadays, as one advances in college studies of physics, one learns the more modern Lagrangian formulations, which are considerably more powerful and correctly express the actual relationships between such things as momentum and energy. The bottom line is that among physics teachers and students, the sentiment is that if you didn't learn physics using at least calculus, you didn't learn physics. You learned how to finger-paint with physics.

So I asked the question about calculus as a proxy for determining the depth to which your physics education has gone. The answer is, "Not very far." And from this basis you presume to lecture others -- including those with professional credentials and decades of experience in the field -- about how the physical world functions.

Once you have your foot in the door to a good career, merit is all that matters and where you were ranked in class no longer means anything at all.

Straw man. I didn't ask about class ranking or careers. It is clear you did not choose physics for a career, and it is clear you simply applied yourself in your youth only as much as required to satisfy minimum general-education requirements. And this is reflected today in your general lack of understanding of the physics arguments made by others, the rebuttals made here by your critics, and your inability to produce relevant physical models for your claims, when asked.

I am not sure why you keep demanding I need to be a physicist or an engineer to discuss the Estonia.

Because those are the bodies of knowledge that pertain to many of the arguments you make, and govern many of the things you want taken as incontrovertible truth, and many things that are simply your say-so dicta. You must demonstrate a correct understanding of that knowledge before any of your decretals become noteworthy. By announcing that you have "five years" of study in physics, you are not only acknowledging that a correct knowledge of the field is requisite to the discussion, but also insinuating that you have those qualifications. Only now that your claim has been revealed as misleading do you disavow the need to have any special knowledge. This is the pattern most fringe claimants follow.

 

[Vixen]

So while you were a child, then. You appear to have had as much primary-school education in physics as every other person in the U.K. at that time and cannot be considered especially qualified in it.



Unfortunately that matters. The physics taught in primary schools is a version formulated without the advantage of calculus. As such it is well suited for solving a small class of well-formed problems, but not for conveying actual understanding. Beginning in college, the version of classical mechanics that is taught there requires calculus, as Sir Isaac himself first formulated it. He had to invent calculus first so that he could express the relationships in their proper form. Nowadays, as one advances in college studies of physics, one learns the more modern Lagrangian formulations, which are considerably more powerful and correctly express the actual relationships between such things as momentum and energy. The bottom line is that among physics teachers and students, the sentiment is that if you didn't learn physics using at least calculus, you didn't learn physics. You learned how to finger-paint with physics.

So I asked the question about calculus as a proxy for determining the depth to which your physics education has gone. The answer is, "Not very far." And from this basis you presume to lecture others -- including those with professional credentials and decades of experience in the field -- about how the physical world functions.



Straw man. I didn't ask about class ranking or careers. It is clear you did not choose physics for a career, and it is clear you simply applied yourself in your youth only as much as required to satisfy minimum general-education requirements. And this is reflected today in your general lack of understanding of the physics arguments made by others, the rebuttals made here by your critics, and your inability to produce relevant physical models for your claims, when asked.



Because those are the bodies of knowledge that pertain to many of the arguments you make, and govern many of the things you want taken as incontrovertible truth, and many things that are simply your say-so dicta. You must demonstrate a correct understanding of that knowledge before any of your decretals become noteworthy. By announcing that you have "five years" of study in physics, you are not only acknowledging that a correct knowledge of the field is requisite to the discussion, but also insinuating that you have those qualifications. Only now that your claim has been revealed as misleading do you disavow the need to have any special knowledge. This is the pattern most fringe claimants follow.

It wasn't a primary school. It was a direct grant grammar school.

 

[Vixen]

damage that doesn't look like collision damage and is anyway above the waterline.

Ah, so the Treaty has been amended and the case reviewed for no reason, then.

 

[JayUtah]

It wasn't a primary school. It was a direct grant grammar school.

Fine, I'll accept the U.K. convention on terminology. I'm using American terminology, so if that means something different to you than it does to me, I'm content to let you control the label.

But that's not really relevant, is it? You claimed "five years" of physics education, leading many no doubt to believe that this was serious, applied, college-level education. In fact it was just a roundabout way of saying you got the same education in physics as every other U.K. child. I'm sure the single-sentence, irrelevant dismissal you've come up with fills everyone here with confidence that you really do know what you're talking about when it comes to the sciences that govern your claims.

 

[JayUtah]

Ah, so the Treaty has been amended and the case reviewed for no reason, then.

Not necessarily for that reason. Again, you need at least a few arguments that aren't blatantly bad straw men.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Ah, so the Treaty has been amended and the case reviewed for no reason, then.

Not for the reason you want.

 

[LondonJohn]

Ah, so the Treaty has been amended and the case reviewed for no reason, then.

No. You've created a(nother) low-end strawman here.

As I pointed out in the post of mine which used the 9/11 report as a comparator, the likelihood is that there are a few discrete areas requiring further investigation, and then potentially requiring relatively minor changes to the report.

And put it this way: if it were to be announced the the official 9/11 investigation needed to be reopened, my first thoughts would most definitely that this would very probably be about relatively fringe elements of the attacks. I most definitely would not jump to any hypothesis that the reopening of the investigation was probably about validating any of the cray-cray conspiracy theories doing the rounds.


Likewise, I don't believe that the reopening of the official Estonia investigation in any way implies a fundamentally changed narrative about the cause of the sinking.

 

[whoanellie]

I meant 50% of the population were to the left of the curve and 50% to the right. Silly me, I wrote within +/-1sd which of course is incorrect. Doh!

Here's what you actually wrote:
"You would not get a normal distribution on a string of results on carbon testing. A normal distribution relies on a mean where 50% of a population falls within ±1 sd of the mean within the Gaussaian equation." So your explanation of what you meant isn't credible.

 

[whoanellie]

What whoanellie refers to is a post wherein I carelessly in colloquial form referred to DNA being available from organic matter and referring to this matter as protein matter. Since then he has been claiming at every possible opportunity that I have a belief DNA is protein when obviously it is comprised of several structures.

It is rather similar to picking people up on spelling or grammar or inadvertently referring to a goal post as the bar.

Here's what you actually wrote:
"Likewise, DNA, being a protein, doesn't usually stick unless there are moist or oily conditions, such as saliva, perspiration, moist skin cells, blood and other bodily fluids."

There really is nothing "colloquial" about it.

 

[whoanellie]

From the start of the First Form to the end of the Fifth Form. Can't remember about the calculus in Physics but we certainly had to do it for Maths.

Once you have your foot in the door to a good career, merit is all that matters and where you were ranked in class no longer means anything at all. I am not sure why you keep demanding I need to be a physicist or an engineer to discuss the Estonia.

At what point in your 5 years of physics did you learn to determine the impact of a rock thrown at a window as follows:
"If thrown from outside, the impact on the window/shutter .... would be weight of the object times distance travelled, which is say, 10lb x six feet (72")= 720lbs (kinetic energy) divided by the distance it comes to a halt. Now it would have come to a stop almost immediately, say a generous 0.08inches, to give an impact of 9,000lb"

At any point in your physics and chemistry education did the topics of dimensional analysis and systems of units come up?

"In a foot system, it is OK to convert into inches, as the distance at 'stop' level is often a small fraction of the distance travelled, hence it makes sense to convert 6 feet into 72 inches, if the stop distance is a fraction of an inch. (This is just a nicetie, and of course, not mandatory.) the weight of the rock was expressed in lbs for similar reason.

How do you think the empire managed before it went metric?"
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11615129#post11615129

Some here may note the similarity between Vixen's approaches to the rock/window and the Estonia/submarine problems

 

[whoanellie]

From the start of the First Form to the end of the Fifth Form. Can't remember about the calculus in Physics but we certainly had to do it for Maths.

As I understand it this is the equivalent of grades 7 - 11 in the US. I find it hard to believe you could have 5 years of physics at that grade level? Did you have to repeat a class?

 

[Vixen]

Fine, I'll accept the U.K. convention on terminology. I'm using American terminology, so if that means something different to you than it does to me, I'm content to let you control the label.

But that's not really relevant, is it? You claimed "five years" of physics education, leading many no doubt to believe that this was serious, applied, college-level education. In fact it was just a roundabout way of saying you got the same education in physics as every other U.K. child. I'm sure the single-sentence, irrelevant dismissal you've come up with fills everyone here with confidence that you really do know what you're talking about when it comes to the sciences that govern your claims.

No, it was not the 'same education as every U.K. child'.