• 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.
whoanellie said:
Well I was right. :D Vixen doesn't even get that there are 360 degrees in a circle. Port and starboard are 180 degrees apart. 135 - 45 = 90, not 180.
Click to expand...


That would explain why Vixen thought Sheen’s finding that the HOFE had turned by more than 90 degrees (although Vixen, of course, quoted that as 90”) supports her claim about “turning turtle”. By Vixen’s reasoning, a 90 degree roll would put the ship completely upside-down.

Sheen went on to say that “there is some reason for thinking that the ship floated more or less on her beam ends”, though. I’m still waiting for Vixen to say what she understands “on her beam ends” to mean.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
A boat can only list so far at which point it stops listing and simply capsizes.
Click to expand...
Why on Earth do you think that?

Vixen, stop ignoring me. I've asked you questions, your rude ignoring of them does not make you look good. In fact it makes you look like a coward.
 
I wonder, how far does a plastic bottle half-filled with water have to list before it turns turtle?
 
Vixen said:
I say turtled because there is a majority here who believe a capsized boat can float on its side rather than succumbing to gravity or the rotational force in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...


Thing is, Vixen: there's a majority of people who understand the subject properly who believe this. No, wait: every single person who understands the subject properly believes this.

There's only one person (that I'm aware of) who holds the ignorant belief that a ship in a 90-degree capsize must either right itself or turn totally upside-down. That'd be you.

And what the hell does "succumbing to gravity" even mean in this context?

You don't know what you're talking about. It's embarrassing, and it's a waste of everyone's time.
 
GlennB said:
They can float, or at least float for a time until they sink. We've all seen the videos and photos. This one is on the brink of going completely beneath the water.
Click to expand...


It's astonishing, isn't it.

I mean, not only does the physics of buoyancy clearly allow for ships in distress to capsize to 90 degrees, then remain on their beam ends until they sink in this same orientation....

....but also there are plenty of actual videos of ships doing exactly this!

And still the zealous "MUST TURN TURTLE!!!" mantra continues unabated....
 
Seems like there is no corner too small or tight to painter herself into.

giphy.gif
 
Vixen said:
For the record, I neither agree nor disagree with Björkman's theories as I am not familiar with them.
Click to expand...

You should have brought yourself up to speed on the man before using him as a source. He has zero credibility.

The same can be said for the rest of the pro-Estonia-conspiracy lot. There isn't a single credible source, each one is playing an angle.
 
Here_to_learn said:
Well, this thing is of course that you are wrong .

The Swedish Prosecution agency started an investigation about Estonia directly after the accident. It did not end until feb 18th 1999. Documents related to the criminal investigation can be read at https://sok.riksarkivet.se/estonia?Fritext=SE/SPF/1/ES/28&page=1#tab

The reason for closing the investigation was:


My transation: "[The prosecutors] reason was that he had not been able to find anything that indicated that any criminal intent was behind the accident. Nor could he investigate negligence in maritime traffic since the responsible commanding officers did not survive the sinking of the ship"
Click to expand...

If no attempt was made to identify the bodies on the bridge or ascertain the whereabouts of the Captain, or whether Piht was dead or alive, how did the prosecutor know "the responsible commanding officers did not survive the sinking of the ship"...?
 
Vixen said:
For the record, I neither agree nor disagree with Björkman's theories as I am not familiar with them.
Click to expand...
Here are some things he believes about space travel.

"US human space travel is 63+ years of FAKE NEWS"

"stupid Europeans spend €14.400 millions on various space projects, most of them 100% fake."

"most space travels are hoaxes, most is done by con men of all sorts, e.g. Lone Smuk and his fantasy company SpaceX, which he owns 100%, etc.

"All spacecraft trajectories between planets, moons and satellites are invented fantasies!"

"the Apollo project was also a 100% fake human space program of the United States. It was more ******** all done in Hollywood studios with rockets flying away to nowhere."

"All 135 (!) Shuttle space missions starting 1981 and to the International Fake/Space Station, IFS, between 1998 and 2007 were 100% fake."

"Two small, unmanned spacecrafts have February 2021 arrived and started orbiting planet Mars. I call them ******** 1 and ******** 2 because their Earth based pilots cannot explain anything about it."

Etc. etc.

https://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm

Those are some of Bjorkman's statements from his views on space travel. Those aren't the views of someone who is simply interested in things. Or the views of someone prone to prolix. Or someone who simply questions the way things are.

Click the link above and read some of it. It's an unhinged expletive filled rant full of invective claiming an entirely insane conspiracy about nearly all space exploration being a huge cover-up because it's actually impossible to send probes to Mars and it's impossible for humans to go to space and back. How can you read that and with a straight face say that he's just someone with curiosity and an odd personality but whose views on another cover-up are full of sound reasoning, good engineering and good science.

It's pure cowardice on your part not to call him out for being clearly unhinged, because you've hung your hat on him being a reliable source of science and engineering for the Estonia sinking, so you ignore his detachment from reality when he talks about science and engineering with regard to space travel, nuclear weapons and the collapse of the WTC.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
If no attempt was made to identify the bodies on the bridge or ascertain the whereabouts of the Captain, or whether Piht was dead or alive, how did the prosecutor know "the responsible commanding officers did not survive the sinking of the ship"...?
Click to expand...

The same way they identified all of the other passengers and crew who did not survive. Lack of a living, breathing body in the subsequent days, weeks, months and years is rather compelling evidence.
 
Steve said:
The same way they identified all of the other passengers and crew who did not survive. Lack of a living, breathing body in the subsequent days, weeks, months and years is rather compelling evidence.
Click to expand...

How do we know he wasn't taken by the CIA on one of those mysterious cargo flights and put in a secret prison somewhere?
 
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...

Why would 0° usefully refer to a mast or funnel that sits perpendicular to the deck and when the ship is at rest on a calm surface?

No, in simple terms, it doesn't mean "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'."

Forget about listing for a moment.

Think of a number between say 10 and 260. Draw a circle. Draw a straight line which passes through the middle. Jot down your number at one end of your straight line. If the number you chose was less than 180, add this to 180 and jot down the total at the other end of your line. If your number was more than 180, subtract it from 360 and jot it down.

Now draw a line that bisects the other line at right angles. This will be 90°
away from the start and end of the other two lines, whatever the figure isyou have.

So, 10°, 20°, 30°, etcetera, will always be 10°, 20°, 30° relative to that point, no matter what configuration you have of your circle, whether it is upside down or back to front.

So, the centre of gravity is not necessarily bang in the physical middle of an object. It lies at the average where all of the points of its average weight lies. So we call this point – where there is perfect balance, the centre of gravity.

So imagine you now have a boat floating in water, which is not flat, but has a rounded hull. Depending on how its cargo is loaded, the centre of gravity is not necessarily in the middle. If it floats, it means there is a centre of buoyancy, also not necessarily at the middle of the boat. (Albeit the crew will aim for trim so that it is.) There is gravity which is perpendicular to the boat (straight downwards, regardless of where it is) and buoyancy which pushes upwards, also perpendicular. The metacentre is the imaginary straight line that passes through the point where the centre of gravity line and the centre of buoyancy line meet and this will vary depending on the angle that the boat is listing in. It is not necessarily upright. As the vessel lists to one side (Z) , say to starboard, say by a movement of one unit downwards, the centre of gravity moves likewise as the weight average is now weighted to its right and the centre of buoyancy moves likewise, thus it carries on floating. This is because the rotational force, the righting arm, exerts a momentum pulling the list back into equilibrium. The more the boat lists, say by two units and then three, this righting force weakens. There comes a point where the boat capsizes owing to the angle of the list, and the side of the ship hitting the surface of the water and concomitant surge of water flooding into it, after which point it flips, Z becomes a rotational force in the opposite direction from the centre of gravity. We have negative stability at the point Z reverses with G. Once toppled over, the boat will continue to interplay gravity versus buoyancy, but this time, whilst upside down. Because there is lesser list whilst upside down, due to the hull shape limitation, one could say a boat is more stable in this position than when it is upright.

So, if we call the centre of gravity in its upright position 0°, the angle of list is relative to this centre of gravity not to an abstract right angle or where the mast stands upright.
 
whoanellie said:
Well I was right. :D Vixen doesn't even get that there are 360 degrees in a circle. Port and starboard are 180 degrees apart. 135 - 45 = 90, not 180.

Of course, the center of gravity is a point in 3-D space not an angle.

What the hell is negative gravity?
I guess this is what 5 years of physics education gets you.

Never mind, whatever Vixen wrote must be true because it's all "Ceteris paribus".
Click to expand...

The relation between Z and G.

Erratum: it should of course, read, 'negative stability' not negative gravity.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Why would 0° usefully refer to a mast or funnel that sits perpendicular to the deck and when the ship is at rest on a calm surface?

No, in simple terms, it doesn't mean "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'."

Forget about listing for a moment.

Think of a number between say 10 and 260. Draw a circle. Draw a straight line which passes through the middle. Jot down your number at one end of your straight line. If the number you chose was less than 180, add this to 180 and jot down the total at the other end of your line. If your number was more than 180, subtract it from 360 and jot it down.

Now draw a line that bisects the other line at right angles. This will be 90°
away from the start and end of the other two lines, whatever the figure isyou have.

So, 10°, 20°, 30°, etcetera, will always be 10°, 20°, 30° relative to that point, no matter what configuration you have of your circle, whether it is upside down or back to front.

So, the centre of gravity is not necessarily bang in the physical middle of an object. It lies at the average where all of the points of its average weight lies. So we call this point – where there is perfect balance, the centre of gravity.

So imagine you now have a boat floating in water, which is not flat, but has a rounded hull. Depending on how its cargo is loaded, the centre of gravity is not necessarily in the middle. If it floats, it means there is a centre of buoyancy, also not necessarily at the middle of the boat. (Albeit the crew will aim for trim so that it is.) There is gravity which is perpendicular to the boat (straight downwards, regardless of where it is) and buoyancy which pushes upwards, also perpendicular. The metacentre is the imaginary straight line that passes through the point where the centre of gravity line and the centre of buoyancy line meet and this will vary depending on the angle that the boat is listing in. It is not necessarily upright. As the vessel lists to one side (Z) , say to starboard, say by a movement of one unit downwards, the centre of gravity moves likewise as the weight average is now weighted to its right and the centre of buoyancy moves likewise, thus it carries on floating. This is because the rotational force, the righting arm, exerts a momentum pulling the list back into equilibrium. The more the boat lists, say by two units and then three, this righting force weakens. There comes a point where the boat capsizes owing to the angle of the list, and the side of the ship hitting the surface of the water and concomitant surge of water flooding into it, after which point it flips, Z becomes a rotational force in the opposite direction from the centre of gravity. We have negative stability at the point Z reverses with G. Once toppled over, the boat will continue to interplay gravity versus buoyancy, but this time, whilst upside down. Because there is lesser list whilst upside down, due to the hull shape limitation, one could say a boat is more stable in this position than when it is upright.

So, if we call the centre of gravity in its upright position 0°, the angle of list is relative to this centre of gravity not to an abstract right angle or where the mast stands upright.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
The relation between Z and G.
Click to expand...

Vixen,

Just stop. You're embarrasing youself.

Actually, I don't think you're capable of embarrasment. Your unfathomable arrogance and inability to acknowledge the depths of your ignorance seem to know no bounds.

You are ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom