• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
A boat is only a half circle in shape, thus if port is at 45° and starboard at 135°, it is indeed standing perpendicular to the deck and now parallel with the water's surface when turned 90°. However, it only takes a list of just 45° for the side of the boat to be irrevocably in a state of impending capsize. At 90° this has surely already happened. And if it has turned more than 90° then it means the rotational force has reversed and it would have continued turning upside down, were it not for the sand bank, where it came to rest.

The guy in the video uses 0° for the centre of gravity thus making it clear what the angle of list is and of course, it depends on the shape of the hull as to what point it tips over. At at an angle of 70° list (or at 160° to the surface of the water) it is likely already at negative gravity and capsize imminent. By 90° it is certainly not floating om its side, it is in the final throes of turtling. (Ceteris paribus)
Click to expand...

Oh dear.
 
SpitfireIX said:
I'm going to be charitable and assume you're not being deliberately obtuse. Rather, I'll assume that in your zeal to attempt to score a few rhetorical points, you simply misread or otherwise failed to comprehend what I'd written. I didn't say Björkman's Hiroshima and Nagasaki denial is the same as Holocaust denial. I said it's as offensive as Holocaust denial.

From his page on Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

There are no public records of persons in Japan having been killed by nuclear weapons and radiation. . . . The two Japanese towns were simply destroyed/burnt down by napalm carpet fire bombings. Only [a] few Japanese died. Military censorship did the rest. And the Japan elite - the secret Black Dragon Society - became a winner. They blamed the war on some military people that were executed.
​

So, Björkman claims that more than 300,000 Japanese didn't die as a result of the use of nuclear weapons, and that it was all simply faked. How is this any less vile than Holocaust denial?




As our good captain observed, you have no idea what you're talking about here, and you really should educate yourself. And as an aside, Björkman disagrees with you that the two cities were legitimate bombing targets.
Click to expand...

I can recommend the fiction of Kazuo Ishiguro, especially his first two novels, A Pale View of Hills and An Artist of the Floating World, as he was actually born in Nagasaki. He does deal with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki issues, albeit having moved to England aged five. This is a better place to understand what happened in Japan, than someone bouncing off theories, which may or may not be reasonable. I have no idea what this person's arguments are that are, 'as offensive as denying the Holocaust'.

For the record, I neither agree nor disagree with Björkman's theories as I am not familiar with them.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
No he doesn't. there is no mention in the report that the ship would have turned turtle if the water had been deeper. In fact the report says the ship listed and then stabilised and continued sinking.

It is very rare for a ship to turn completely over when it is sinking.
Click to expand...

Sheen clearly states the vessel had turned over more than 90°.
 
Vixen said:
A boat is only a half circle in shape, thus if port is at 45° and starboard at 135°, it is indeed standing perpendicular to the deck and now parallel with the water's surface when turned 90°. However, it only takes a list of just 45° for the side of the boat to be irrevocably in a state of impending capsize. At 90° this has surely already happened. And if it has turned more than 90° then it means the rotational force has reversed and it would have continued turning upside down, were it not for the sand bank, where it came to rest.
Click to expand...

You just made all that up.

The guy in the video uses 0° for the centre of gravity thus making it clear what the angle of list is and of course, it depends on the shape of the hull as to what point it tips over. At at an angle of 70° list (or at 160° to the surface of the water) it is likely already at negative gravity and capsize imminent. By 90° it is certainly not floating om its side, it is in the final throes of turtling. (Ceteris paribus)
Click to expand...

You just made all of that up.
 
Vixen said:
A boat is only a half circle in shape, thus if port is at 45° and starboard at 135°, it is indeed standing perpendicular to the deck and now parallel with the water's surface when turned 90°. However, it only takes a list of just 45° for the side of the boat to be irrevocably in a state of impending capsize. At 90° this has surely already happened. And if it has turned more than 90° then it means the rotational force has reversed and it would have continued turning upside down, were it not for the sand bank, where it came to rest.

The guy in the video uses 0° for the centre of gravity thus making it clear what the angle of list is and of course, it depends on the shape of the hull as to what point it tips over. At at an angle of 70° list (or at 160° to the surface of the water) it is likely already at negative gravity and capsize imminent. By 90° it is certainly not floating om its side, it is in the final throes of turtling. (Ceteris paribus)
Click to expand...

This is incoherent, scientifically illiterate gibberish.
 
Vixen said:
A boat is only a half circle in shape, thus if port is at 45° and starboard at 135°, it is indeed standing perpendicular to the deck and now parallel with the water's surface when turned 90°. However, it only takes a list of just 45° for the side of the boat to be irrevocably in a state of impending capsize. At 90° this has surely already happened. And if it has turned more than 90° then it means the rotational force has reversed and it would have continued turning upside down, were it not for the sand bank, where it came to rest.

The guy in the video uses 0° for the centre of gravity thus making it clear what the angle of list is and of course, it depends on the shape of the hull as to what point it tips over. At at an angle of 70° list (or at 160° to the surface of the water) it is likely already at negative gravity and capsize imminent. By 90° it is certainly not floating om its side, it is in the final throes of turtling. (Ceteris paribus)
Click to expand...

You are KenM and I claim my £10.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
No he doesn't. there is no mention in the report that the ship would have turned turtle if the water had been deeper. In fact the report says the ship listed and then stabilised and continued sinking.

It is very rare for a ship to turn completely over when it is sinking.
Click to expand...

Not in a car ro-ro ferry with free surface flooding, it is not.

As most ship sinkings are to do with machinery problems (fire, pipes, slow flooding) or collisions then your last para might be true but doesn't hold true for the type of vessel MS Jan Heweliusz, Estonia or The Herald of Free Enterprise was.

In fact, you are the outlier as it is generally accepted that The Herald of Free Enterprise would have turtled but for the sand bar. What stopped Estonia from turtling?
 
Vixen said:
A boat is only a half circle in shape, thus if port is at 45° and starboard at 135°, it is indeed standing perpendicular to the deck and now parallel with the water's surface when turned 90°. However, it only takes a list of just 45° for the side of the boat to be irrevocably in a state of impending capsize. At 90° this has surely already happened. And if it has turned more than 90° then it means the rotational force has reversed and it would have continued turning upside down, were it not for the sand bank, where it came to rest.

The guy in the video uses 0° for the centre of gravity thus making it clear what the angle of list is and of course, it depends on the shape of the hull as to what point it tips over. At at an angle of 70° list (or at 160° to the surface of the water) it is likely already at negative gravity and capsize imminent. By 90° it is certainly not floating om its side, it is in the final throes of turtling. (Ceteris paribus)
Click to expand...

Oh dear, indeed.

Even beginning to unpick this morass would require starting with parsing it. Since we can't even get a straight answer on what you take the terms "capsize" and "turn turtle" to mean, it's a non-starter.
 
Vixen said:
Not in a car ro-ro ferry with free surface flooding, it is not.
Click to expand...

What is you evidence for this?
Why would free surface flooding cause it to 'turn turtle'

As most ship sinkings are to do with machinery problems (fire, pipes, slow flooding) or collisions then your last para might be true but doesn't hold true for the type of vessel MS Jan Heweliusz, Estonia or The Herald of Free Enterprise was.
Click to expand...

What is your evidence for this?

In fact, you are the outlier as it is generally accepted that The Herald of Free Enterprise would have turtled but for the sand bar. What stopped Estonia from turtling?
Click to expand...

How am I the 'outlier' when the report says the HOFE didn't turn right over.
 
Vixen said:
A boat is only a half circle in shape, thus if port is at 45° and starboard at 135°, it is indeed standing perpendicular to the deck and now parallel with the water's surface when turned 90°.
Click to expand...

I mean, just this first sentence is a work of genius. But we are all works of genius on this blessed day.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Oh dear, indeed.

Even beginning to unpick this morass would require starting with parsing it. Since we can't even get a straight answer on what you take the terms "capsize" and "turn turtle" to mean, it's a non-starter.
Click to expand...

A reference point from which we start measuring angles would be handy, for a start. I'd suggest that 0° would usefully refer to a mast or funnel that sits perpendicular to the deck and when the ship is at rest on a calm surface. Capsizing 90° to either port or starboard would then see the mast parallel to the water's surface, while 180° would see the mast pointing straight down, i.e. a precise 'turtling'.

But Vixen actually requires maximum confusion, so I'm not expecting her ever to be systematic about these things.
 
GlennB said:
A reference point from which we start measuring angles would be handy, for a start. I'd suggest that 0° would usefully refer to a mast or funnel that sits perpendicular to the deck and when the ship is at rest on a calm surface. Capsizing 90° to either port or starboard would then see the mast parallel to the water's surface, while 180° would see the mast pointing straight down, i.e. a precise 'turtling'.

But Vixen actually requires maximum confusion, so I'm not expecting her ever to be systematic about these things.
Click to expand...

If only there was a way to find out what the convention is!
 
Vixen said:
A boat is only a half circle in shape, thus if port is at 45° and starboard at 135°,
Click to expand...

Mindboggling.

So, port and starboard are only 90° apart? What, then, is the opposite direction, 180° in the other direction, to port?

No point looking at the rest of the gibberish until that is resolved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom