Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part IV

[Vixen]

Alright,

Just to expose the stupidity of these questions.


Take an empty plastic bottle with its lid on. Chuck it into a container of water. Does it float?
Answer. It sinks or it floats, depending on the specific density of the plastic in question, the amount of plastic used in said bottle and the volume of water displaced.

Now half fill it with water and screw on lid. Chuck it in. Does it still float? Why?
Almost the same answer.
It sinks or it floats, depending on the specific density of the plastic in question, the amount of plastic used in said bottle, the amount of water in the bottle and the volume of water displaced.

Now fill it completely with water. What happens and why?
Answer. It sinks or it floats, depending on the specific density of the plastic used.

Something like this?

Edit. Answers with the assumption that the specific density of the lid is the same as that of the plastic used.

I once had an accountancy lecturer who would go absolutely apoplectic with rage and frustration, throwing his chalk about, if a student dared answer any of his exceedingly tough questions with, 'It depends'. Likewise, the examiners: the key to passing the mind-bending exams was to take a view and then justify it.

'It depends,' as an answer, is a big fat, 'No Baby, no'.

Try again.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I once had an accountancy lecturer who would go absolutely apoplectic with rage and frustration, throwing his chalk about, if a student dared answer any of his exceedingly tough questions with, 'It depends'. Likewise, the examiners: the key to passing the mind-bending exams was to take a view and then justify it.

'It depends,' as an answer, is a big fat, 'No Baby, no'.

Try again.

So tell us the density of the plastic that the bottle is made from.

Some plastic floats, some sinks, it makes a big difference to the answer.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Consider this: you (upright at 90°) are skateboarding along a road with a flat surface, when you come to a cliff edge. Your skateboard now tilts over 90°. Which direction do you think you will go next if you had no time to change it?


Imagine the surface of the water is a straight horizontal line. Your boat tips more than 90° to port or starboard. What happens next assuming no intervention?

This supposed analogy is a waste of keystrokes. Sheen says the HOFE remained floating on its beam ends for about a minute until it touched the bottom.

If your skateboard has, for some reason you cannot understand, stood on its side for an entire minute, how does your gut feeling for what ought to have happened immediately (yet didn't happen) of any assistance in telling you what will happen next?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I once had an accountancy lecturer who would go absolutely apoplectic with rage and frustration, throwing his chalk about, if a student dared answer any of his exceedingly tough questions with, 'It depends'. Likewise, the examiners: the key to passing the mind-bending exams was to take a view and then justify it.

'It depends,' as an answer, is a big fat, 'No Baby, no'.

Try again.

You seem to have learned a bad lesson from a poor teacher. When the answer is not known, it is frankly stupid to leap to one conclusion (e.g. Amanda Knox is a wrong 'un) and then stick stubbornly to it, defending your first guess to the death despite all evidence you're wrong.

 

[Vixen]

Indeed, Hoffmeister concluded that over-stressing was the cause of failure, not some satchel charge. The FEA he performed is crude by today's standards, but reasonably commensurate with what any other practitioner could have accomplished without specialized computing resources. It is, however, not sufficient to establish a different failure sequence as the only one supported by evidence.

No, Hoffmeister did not find that was 'the cause of failure'. Quite the contrary. The locks did what it said on the tin, with the ship designers factoring in wave strength. What it was not reasonable for the ship architects to factor in, was the additional 150 tonnes of water splashing about between the bow visor and bow ramp on every trip due to the gap in the side thereof owing to the appalling record of care and maintenance of the thing, or lack thereof rather.


The JAIC was informed of all this and it could see for itself the red mattress by the bow ramp and sheeting and blankets that the crew regularly used to plug the leak. Lehtola waved this away as, 'Oh, there must have been some clothing storage unit nearby'.

 

[Vixen]

You have made all of those claims. Would you like me to start quoting your posts? You know, claims you made.

Yes, because you are lying.

 

[Vixen]

There is a long way between more than 90 and completely inverted.
As soon as there wasn't enough buoyancy to keep it afloat it would sink.
We can read in the report that the HOFE had stopped turning when it sank.

What does the boat buoyancy test have to do with anything?

...erm, because it rested on a sandbar.

 

[abaddon]

His factual statements about Estonia seem bang on the nail to me. Elementary principles, easily calculable. Hans Hoffmeister of Hamburg University had no problem in calculating the Finite Element stress thresholds of each of the locks on the bow visor. Completely different from the JAIC who had three years' advantage.

Objective, scientific, provable.

yet here you are talking about an entirely different ship. What? Are all sinkings somehow the same? How the hell does that work?

Sure, HMS Hood, HMS Sheffield, Bismark, The entire high seas fleet, they all sank exactly the same way, didn't they, vixen? Just like the Titanic.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...erm, because it rested on a sandbar.

"... erm" For about a minute before it touched the sand bar, Sheen says it floated on its side. Do you deny this?

 

[Vixen]

You seem to have learned a bad lesson from a poor teacher. When the answer is not known, it is frankly stupid to leap to one conclusion (e.g. Amanda Knox is a wrong 'un) and then stick stubbornly to it, defending your first guess to the death despite all evidence you're wrong.

Yet another person who cannot bear anyone who disagrees with him or her on one topic so they become a hate object on all topics.

So much for the ability to be objective.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I once had an accountancy lecturer who would go absolutely apoplectic with rage and frustration, throwing his chalk about, if a student dared answer any of his exceedingly tough questions with, 'It depends'. Likewise, the examiners: the key to passing the mind-bending exams was to take a view and then justify it.

'It depends,' as an answer, is a big fat, 'No Baby, no'.

Try again.

Your lecturer was a moron then.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Vixen, did you or did you not claim to be a scientist? Are you claiming to be one now?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Yet another person who cannot bear anyone who disagrees with him or her on one topic so they become a hate object on all topics.

So much for the ability to be objective.

Merely noting a pattern of extraordinarily stubborn behaviour.

I don't contribute to that thread because it's a bit close to home. One of the Kercher siblings was a friend and colleague. So I have no contribution there for you to have disagreed with in the first place.

 

[abaddon]

Yes, because you are lying.

OK then. Did you or did you not claim 5 years of physics education?

Yes or no.

 

[Vixen]

"... erm" For about a minute before it touched the sand bar, Sheen says it floated on its side. Do you deny this?

There will always be a momentary pause before a ship turns over, due to resistance of the water from the opposite direction. What did Sheen say? "One minute". Oceanos, weighed down by water in its hull, took nine minutes, after 18 hours of listing heavily to starboard.

What does the JAIC say about the Estonia?

 

[abaddon]

Did you or did you not claim to be a scientist?

Yes or no.

 

[abaddon]

Did you or did you not claim to be a forensic specialist.

Yes or no.

 

[erwinl]

I once had an accountancy lecturer who would go absolutely apoplectic with rage and frustration, throwing his chalk about, if a student dared answer any of his exceedingly tough questions with, 'It depends'. Likewise, the examiners: the key to passing the mind-bending exams was to take a view and then justify it.

'It depends,' as an answer, is a big fat, 'No Baby, no'.

Try again.

Are you saying one should produce a definite answer, even if one knows for sure one lacks some details that are desperately needed for those answers?

How can you call yourself a scientist if that is how you look at questions?

 

[Vixen]

OK then. Did you or did you not claim 5 years of physics education?

Yes or no.

That is because it is true.

 

[Vixen]

Did you or did you not claim to be a forensic specialist.

Yes or no.

It is true I did proceeds of crime.