5 ms·

Did the Titanic sink because of an optical illusion?

60 points by danvideo 15y ago

js2 15y ago
I'm a sucker for stories about the Titanic, but this story lead me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fata_Morgana_(mirage) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fata_Morgana_(mirage) which I found way more interesting.
joshAg 15y ago
for me, the coolest fact was that the Titanic's spotter saw the iceberg when it was still a mile away. For some reason, I thought the spotter only saw it with hundreds or tens of yards to spare.
- panacea 15y ago
  The way film, TV and literature has always presented it, was it hit the berg in an inky black night with scant but a faint glow from the swinging lantern aboard the spotter's helm.
nikanj 15y ago
No, it sunk because of an iceberg
- Fargren 15y ago
  And JFK died of a bullet, but we still wonder how it got there.
  - emidln 15y ago
    Obviously pirates doing the FSM's work. It's well known that FSM hates DiCaprio.
iwwr 15y ago
One thing that might have saved the Titanic would have been to steer directly into the iceberg, bow-on. That way, only one compartment (the front one) would have been damaged), allowing it to stay afloat.
- perlgeek 15y ago
  That sounds like something that only works in theory. Hitting it perfectly frontal is nearly impossible, and then it'll continue to rub on one of the sides after the first impact. Also remember that much of the crew thought the Titanic was unsinkable (at least that's what popular books and movies suggest...), so an attempt to hit it frontally in order to provide more damage seems quite far off.
  - panacea 15y ago
    "and then it'll continue to rub on one of the sides after the first impact." Not if it cranked up the speed! Cue Hollywood dialogue: Spotter: Captain, we're almost upon the behemoth... we can't avoid it! Captain: Full. Speed. Ahead. Scotty in the engine room: But we're a cruise liner, not a... Captain: I said FULL SPEED! Aerial Titanic etc...
- JanezStupar 15y ago
  Dunno how that would have worked out. AFAIK the Titanic should be completely fine in the situation that happened to it. However the steel used for its construction had been too brittle because of cold, thus the ship sustained worse damage than one would expect from such a collision. Edit: This site says it ain't so: http://www.titanic1.org/articles/brittle-steel.asp http://www.titanic1.org/articles/brittle-steel.asp
PakG1 15y ago
You know, this is a perfect metaphor for what often happens in organizations in critical projects/operations when people misunderstand each other, leading to disastrous mistakes and situations. The arrogant, sadistic captain of the Californian that made people too afraid to act, the multiple missed distress calls, the incorrect perception of what they saw of each other, it's got everything.
panacea 15y ago
Is the answer to forfty-fifths of headlines posed as a question, "no"?
RollAHardSix 15y ago
Silly, the Titanic sank because of Geoffrey Palmer.
WayneDB 15y ago
A theory exists that the owner of the Titanic - JP Morgan - was the force behind it's sinking and that all the wealthy and powerful men that his group wanted to get rid of were invited to be on that ship. You can read about it here - http://www.titanicuniverse.com/the-titanic-conspiracy http://www.titanicuniverse.com/the-titanic-conspiracy
- Drbble 15y ago
  Your summary elides quite a bit of the quackery of that article... Illuminati, Jesuit secret agents, Federal Reserve...
  - WayneDB 15y ago
    The site itself is not a conspiracy site. The article is written in a completely neutral point of view. It's your opinion that any conspiracy theories involving the aforementioned subjects are quackery. If you think conspiracies never happen, you're wrong and if you believe that all of our institutions exist for the good of mankind you're even more wrong. So, what was your point anyway? I was just pointing out that there's a theory that exists. Are you accusing me of some sort of subterfuge here?
    - tzs 15y ago
      It's not just his opinion that the article you linked to is quackery. It is fact. For instance, consider the stuff about the color of the flares, and red meaning distress and white meaning identification. That's all made up. In 1912 the internationally recognized distress signals at night were: 1. A gun or other explosive fired at intervals of about a minute, 2. flames on the vessel, 3. Flares of any color, used one at a time at short intervals, 4. A continuous sounding with any fog-signal apparatus.
      - WayneDB 15y ago
        Those weren't the examples that were given to me. Even assuming you're right on that single fact, being incorrect on a single fact still isn't quackery.

60 points by danvideo 15y ago

js2 15y ago

I'm a sucker for stories about the Titanic, but this story lead me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fata_Morgana_(mirage) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fata_Morgana_(mirage) which I found way more interesting.

joshAg 15y ago

for me, the coolest fact was that the Titanic's spotter saw the iceberg when it was still a mile away. For some reason, I thought the spotter only saw it with hundreds or tens of yards to spare.

panacea 15y ago
The way film, TV and literature has always presented it, was it hit the berg in an inky black night with scant but a faint glow from the swinging lantern aboard the spotter's helm.

nikanj 15y ago

No, it sunk because of an iceberg

Fargren 15y ago
And JFK died of a bullet, but we still wonder how it got there.
- emidln 15y ago
  Obviously pirates doing the FSM's work. It's well known that FSM hates DiCaprio.

iwwr 15y ago

One thing that might have saved the Titanic would have been to steer directly into the iceberg, bow-on. That way, only one compartment (the front one) would have been damaged), allowing it to stay afloat.

perlgeek 15y ago
That sounds like something that only works in theory. Hitting it perfectly frontal is nearly impossible, and then it'll continue to rub on one of the sides after the first impact. Also remember that much of the crew thought the Titanic was unsinkable (at least that's what popular books and movies suggest...), so an attempt to hit it frontally in order to provide more damage seems quite far off.
- panacea 15y ago
  "and then it'll continue to rub on one of the sides after the first impact." Not if it cranked up the speed! Cue Hollywood dialogue: Spotter: Captain, we're almost upon the behemoth... we can't avoid it! Captain: Full. Speed. Ahead. Scotty in the engine room: But we're a cruise liner, not a... Captain: I said FULL SPEED! Aerial Titanic etc...
JanezStupar 15y ago
Dunno how that would have worked out. AFAIK the Titanic should be completely fine in the situation that happened to it. However the steel used for its construction had been too brittle because of cold, thus the ship sustained worse damage than one would expect from such a collision. Edit: This site says it ain't so: http://www.titanic1.org/articles/brittle-steel.asp http://www.titanic1.org/articles/brittle-steel.asp

PakG1 15y ago

You know, this is a perfect metaphor for what often happens in organizations in critical projects/operations when people misunderstand each other, leading to disastrous mistakes and situations. The arrogant, sadistic captain of the Californian that made people too afraid to act, the multiple missed distress calls, the incorrect perception of what they saw of each other, it's got everything.

panacea 15y ago

Is the answer to forfty-fifths of headlines posed as a question, "no"?

RollAHardSix 15y ago

Silly, the Titanic sank because of Geoffrey Palmer.

WayneDB 15y ago

A theory exists that the owner of the Titanic - JP Morgan - was the force behind it's sinking and that all the wealthy and powerful men that his group wanted to get rid of were invited to be on that ship. You can read about it here - http://www.titanicuniverse.com/the-titanic-conspiracy http://www.titanicuniverse.com/the-titanic-conspiracy

Drbble 15y ago
Your summary elides quite a bit of the quackery of that article... Illuminati, Jesuit secret agents, Federal Reserve...
- WayneDB 15y ago
  The site itself is not a conspiracy site. The article is written in a completely neutral point of view. It's your opinion that any conspiracy theories involving the aforementioned subjects are quackery. If you think conspiracies never happen, you're wrong and if you believe that all of our institutions exist for the good of mankind you're even more wrong. So, what was your point anyway? I was just pointing out that there's a theory that exists. Are you accusing me of some sort of subterfuge here?
  - tzs 15y ago
    It's not just his opinion that the article you linked to is quackery. It is fact. For instance, consider the stuff about the color of the flares, and red meaning distress and white meaning identification. That's all made up. In 1912 the internationally recognized distress signals at night were: 1. A gun or other explosive fired at intervals of about a minute, 2. flames on the vessel, 3. Flares of any color, used one at a time at short intervals, 4. A continuous sounding with any fog-signal apparatus.
    - WayneDB 15y ago
      Those weren't the examples that were given to me. Even assuming you're right on that single fact, being incorrect on a single fact still isn't quackery.