The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[JayUtah]

Really?

Yes, really. You've claimed to be an expert in statistics and the scientific method. You've claimed to have received above-average education in physics. You've based various arguments or rebuttals on say-so claims deriving from this alleged expertise. That puts you on the voir dire hook.

You could fix this, of course, by using arguments that don't require your critics to accept your word as an "expert" for things.

 

[Vixen]

Good for you. Can you explain why your claims of exceptional academic prowess decades ago should be a better determiner of your ability to reason through physics problems today than your manifest ineptitude when asked simple questions?

I didn't say it was. You were the one who was claiming I was some kind of dumb airhead who had no right to be contributing to a thread on marine matters, that I was incompetent at Physics and a general all-round reprobate, who once dared to make a mistake in a post date 2015.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, really. You've claimed to be an expert in statistics and the scientific method. You've claimed to have received above-average education in physics. You've based various arguments or rebuttals on say-so claims deriving from this alleged expertise. That puts you on the voir dire hook.

You could fix this, of course, by using arguments that don't require your critics to accept your word as an "expert" for things.

Let's put this in context. London John deigned to give me a lecture on the probability of getting heads or tails from a coin. I simply told him not to bother talking down to me.

You are the person who never lets us forget that YOU are the expert around here and anyone who disagrees with you needs to be firmly told off and lectured on their shortcomings as claimed by you.

 

[JayUtah]

I didn't say it was. You were the one who was claiming I was some kind of dumb airhead...

I made no such claim.

...who had no right to be contributing to a thread on marine matters...

I made no such claim.

...that I was incompetent at Physics...

You cannot demonstrate competence in physics. That's simply a statement of fact. That becomes relevant in a number of ways. You have rejoined a number of rebuttals by simply claiming "the laws of physics" work in your favor, without elaborating how. If you cannot demonstrate competence in the laws of physics, then your critics have no reason to consider their rebuttals answered by a simple, hopeful reference. You have proposed such things as specific submarine-collision scenarios that require knowledge of physics to determine whether they are plausible. You were asked to perform the exercise to make that determination, and you failed comically. If you cannot demonstrate knowledge of the relevant laws, no one is obliged to consider your propositions well reasoned. Conversely when those who are more knowledgeable than you point out how your various claims fail, show you how, and you cannot understand the answer, it means you're not competent to have the discussion on that point and you should graciously acknowledge that failure. You set expectations for others based on your personal judgment of how they should otherwise have professionally behaved, without being able to demonstrate any knowledge of the relevant fields or experience in how work in those fields is appropriately done. How is that kind of argument anything more than arrogant presumption?

I'm proposing nothing more radical than that someone simply should know what he or she is talking about if credibility is desired.

...and a general all-round reprobate

I made no such claim.

...who once dared to make a mistake in a post date 2015.

Asked an answered. You have a pattern of error that suggests you habitually claim to have more relevant expertise than you can actually demonstrate. Hence your critics are apt to consider further such claims with due skepticism. It would be wise for you not to base any further claims upon insinuations to expertise you aren't prepared to demonstrate to others' satisfaction.

You also have a habit of shoving arguments into people's mouths that they never made, with the apparent goal of announcing how badly you're being treated by your critics. Kindly stop playing the victim. It's not fooling anyone.

 

[JayUtah]

Let's put this in context. London John deigned to give me a lecture on the probability of getting heads or tails from a coin. I simply told him not to bother talking down to me.

London John attempted to correct your misunderstanding of what a null hypothesis is, using a simple example. He was correct about what a null hypothesis is, and you continue to be wrong. Complaining that you are being "talked down to" misses the point. No one is obliged to indulge your ongoing ignorance, nor to be lectured by you from that position.

You are the person who never lets us forget that YOU are the expert around here and anyone who disagrees with you needs to be firmly told off and lectured on their shortcomings as claimed by you.

I have relevant professional expertise in the matters you are trying to discuss, and you do not. Yet you insist on being treated as if you do, and expecting others to overlook or indulge your many errors. That's simply childish. I am certainly not impervious to criticism nor immune from error. But it requires more than just being constantly butthurt to show another's error. If you want a forum where you can pontificate unmolested by others, this is probably not the place.

 

[whoanellie]

I didn't say I had difficulty, I said I was more of a Chemistry person. In fact, I was teacher's pet.

Well you don't seem to know much about chemistry either.

 

[Vixen]

I made no such claim.



I made no such claim.



You cannot demonstrate competence in physics. That's simply a statement of fact. That becomes relevant in a number of ways. You have rejoined a number of rebuttals by simply claiming "the laws of physics" work in your favor, without elaborating how. If you cannot demonstrate competence in the laws of physics, then your critics have no reason to consider their rebuttals answered by a simple, hopeful reference. You have proposed such things as specific submarine-collision scenarios that require knowledge of physics to determine whether they are plausible. If you cannot demonstrate knowledge of the relevant laws, no one is obliged to consider your propositions well reasoned. Conversely when those who are more knowledgeable than you point out how your various claims fail, and you cannot understand the answer, your critics are not obliged to consider the rebuttal answered.



I made no such claim.



Asked an answered. You have a pattern of error that suggests you habitually claim to have more relevant expertise than you can actually demonstrate. Hence your critics are apt to consider further such claims with due skepticism. It would be wise for you not to base any further claims upon insinuations to expertise you aren't prepared to demonstrate to others' satisfaction.

I am afraid that it is a law of physics that a ship designed to float will turn upside down if it capsizes. This is what the Herald of Fee Enterprise would have done had the accident happened at open sea. You can stamp your foot as much as you like. The JAIC didn't seem to question this simple fact as to why the Estonia sank so incredibly quickly, rather than float turtle for hours or days, like the MS Jan Heweliusz

The Jan Heweliusz, which capsized 18 miles off the German island of Rugen, was a roll-on, roll- off ferry of similar design to the Herald of Free Enterprise which capsized off the Belgian port of Zeebrugge in March 1987 claiming 193 lives.

Independent

 

[Vixen]

London John attempted to correct your misunderstanding of what a null hypothesis is, using a simple example. He was correct about what a null hypothesis is, and you continue to be wrong. Complaining that you are being "talked down to" misses the point. No one is obliged to indulge your ongoing ignorance, nor to be lectured by you from that position.



I have relevant professional expertise in the matters you are trying to discuss, and you do not. Yet you insist on being treated as if you do, and expecting others to overlook or indulge your many errors. That's simply childish. I am certainly not impervious to criticism nor immune from error. But it requires more than just being constantly butthurt to show another's error. If you want a forum where you can pontificate unmolested by others, this is probably not the place.

No, I have never claimed any special expertise but to call me scientifically illiterate is just stupid so I rebutted it.

 

[JayUtah]

I am afraid that it is...

Another deflection. Your beliefs about what ships should do when they sink have been discussed already at length.

 

[JayUtah]

No, I have never claimed any special expertise but to call me scientifically illiterate is just stupid so I rebutted it.

Straw man. I made no such claim.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I am afraid that it is a law of physics that a ship designed to float will turn upside down if it capsizes.

Can you state this law for me?

What about ships that capsize and don't float upside down?

 

[Kid Eager]

I didn't say it was. You were the one who was claiming I was some kind of dumb airhead who had no right to be contributing to a thread on marine matters, that I was incompetent at Physics and a general all-round reprobate, who once dared to make a mistake in a post date 2015.

I am afraid that it is a law of physics that a ship designed to float will turn upside down if it capsizes. This is what the Herald of Fee Enterprise would have done had the accident happened at open sea. You can stamp your foot as much as you like. The JAIC didn't seem to question this simple fact as to why the Estonia sank so incredibly quickly, rather than float turtle for hours or days, like the MS Jan Heweliusz

Independent

QED
(ETA - What Captain Swoop said)
(ETA2 - obviously this law doesn't apply to ships designed not to float, nor for ships that manage to evade the definition of capsizing by not being upside down having capsized...)

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Can you state this law for me?



What about ships that capsize and don't float upside down?

No true ship?

What's amazing is there are a number of principles that make ships doing so a reasonable occurrence, certainly.

But merely saying it "can" happen rather than the hilarious overreach of "will" would have denied Vixen the springboard to "therefore, coverup" and thus that truth has to be surrendered to the CT.

 

[Axxman300]

I am afraid that it is a law of physics that a ship designed to float will turn upside down if it capsizes. This is what the Herald of Fee Enterprise would have done had the accident happened at open sea. You can stamp your foot as much as you like. The JAIC didn't seem to question this simple fact as to why the Estonia sank so incredibly quickly, rather than float turtle for hours or days, like the MS Jan Heweliusz

Independent

I can't think of anything funnier than this statement.

It also suggests that there are ships designed not to float.

 

[phiwum]

I am afraid that it is a law of physics that a ship designed to float will turn upside down if it capsizes. This is what the Herald of Fee Enterprise would have done had the accident happened at open sea. You can stamp your foot as much as you like. The JAIC didn't seem to question this simple fact as to why the Estonia sank so incredibly quickly, rather than float turtle for hours or days, like the MS Jan Heweliusz

Independent

It's an interesting law of physics, but let me see if I understand it.

If a ship has a hole punched through it by torpedo or collision, it may just sink, but if it capsizes, it turns turtle and floats for a long time before it goes down, right?

So, since the Estonia sank quickly, it must be that the four meter hole above the waterline was the cause of the disaster. Had it instead have been the rather larger bow visor falling away, the ship would have turned turtle, but because this much smaller entry was allowing water to enter, it sank quite fast.

Is that the reasoning? Just checking...

 

[theprestige]

I am afraid that it is a law of physics that a ship designed to float will turn upside down if it capsizes.

Jesus Christ. Capsizing is turning upside down by definition. This isn't a law of physics. It's a rule of English.

Why are all of your arguments so consistently wrong on every basic point?

 

[whoanellie]

Jesus Christ. Capsizing is turning upside down by definition. This isn't a law of physics. It's a rule of English.

Why are all of your arguments so consistently wrong on every basic point?

Capsizing can refer to a ship/boat that is turned on its side or has turned turtle. There is, however, a hefty dose of tautology to Vixen's law.

Rereading Vixen's law I see that it doesn't apply to ships that are not designed to float

 

[pzkpfw]

Are they teaching The Poseidon Adventure (1972), or Poseidon (2006) at University these days?

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's an interesting law of physics, but let me see if I understand it.

If a ship has a hole punched through it by torpedo or collision, it may just sink, but if it capsizes, it turns turtle and floats for a long time before it goes down, right?

So, since the Estonia sank quickly, it must be that the four meter hole above the waterline was the cause of the disaster. Had it instead have been the rather larger bow visor falling away, the ship would have turned turtle, but because this much smaller entry was allowing water to enter, it sank quite fast.

Is that the reasoning? Just checking...

Don't forget that in addition to the hole the bow visor was blown off by explosive charges.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Jesus Christ. Capsizing is turning upside down by definition. This isn't a law of physics. It's a rule of English.

Why are all of your arguments so consistently wrong on every basic point?

Capsize means the ship rolled past the point where it could recover, it doesn't always mean completely upside down.