Science
Related: About this forumTitanic Sunk by "Supermoon" and Celestial Alignment?
National Geographic ArticleAn ultrarare alignment of the sun, the full moon, and Earth, they say, may have set the April 14, 1912, tragedy in motion, according to a new report.
R.M.S. Titanic went down on a moonless night, but the iceberg that sank the luxury liner may have been launched in part by a full moon that occurred three and a half months earlier, scientists say.
That full moon, on January 4, 1912, may have created unusually strong tides that sent a flotilla of icebergs southwardjust in time for Titanic's maiden voyage, said astronomer Donald Olson of Texas State University-San Marcos.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)montanto
(2,966 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)digonswine
(1,485 posts)than a new moon--just brighter--from reflected light from the sun!! Wowee!
eppur_se_muova
(36,317 posts)because the tidal forces of sun and moon are acting in concert. Half-moon (waxing or waning) coincide with weaker "neap" tides.
OTOH -- Either there was an iceberg in the ship's path or there wasn't. Saying the Titanic sank "because" of an unusally strong tide is stretching the word "because" beyond any reasonable meaning.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)That graphic is wrong--the tidal bulges aren't directly under the moon.
eppur_se_muova
(36,317 posts)And the tidal bulges aren't nearly that big. Sometimes you can't draw things to scale and make the point -- I doubt the deviation from the Earth-Moon axis is really large enough to be visible unless greatly exaggerated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration#Effects_of_Moon.27s_gravity
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)The graphic was obviously not to scale too.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)It's just a case of putting something catching in a headline to report an otherwise boring science study, no matter how tenuous the connection.
digonswine
(1,485 posts)before I looked at the article--I should know better. I was assuming woo where there was none!
eppur_se_muova
(36,317 posts)digonswine
(1,485 posts)I still don't buy it--
The Earth is directly between the Sun and moon for every full moon. I find it hard to believe that the idea that the moon was closer, and the sun was closer to the earth at that time can be blamed for this.
DCKit
(18,541 posts)Geez, people, there's a reason they're called accidents.
Then again, who was supposed to be watching out ahead of the ship for obstacles? It's not as if they had radar, or sonar, GPS or accurate charts in those days.
At least the captain of the Titanic didn't push women and children out of his way in order to reach the first lifeboat - in those days, even most of the 1% didn't do that, and some ended up going down with the ship, becoming heroes. Not all, but some.
Sanity Claws
(21,866 posts)"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
GETPLANING
(846 posts)the builder's decision to use thinner steel in the hull to save weight (and cost) was the reason the Titanic sank after striking an iceberg. Thinner steel held in place with smaller rivets was more brittle in the freezing water and fractured rather than bent inwards in the collision. I believe there was an expedition down to the Titanic to examine the hull to determine whether the failure of the hull was a gash in the metal plates, or failure of the rivets, and the rivets were found to have been the culprits.
SemperEadem
(8,053 posts)to send a gazillion ice bergs... fact of the matter was Captain Smith, on Bruce Ismay's orders, was running the ship too fast through the ice field in order to break the record of sailing to New York. He ignored the warnings sent earlier in the day regarding the icebergs in his path.
Had there been more spy glasses for the men on watch in the crow's nest and had the ship not been barrelling through the ocean, things may have turned out differently. Had there been enough lifeboats for every passenger, the loss of life would probably not have been so high.
sybylla
(8,533 posts)Okay, that might have put the iceberg there, but that didn't put the stupid in charge.
And that's a huge MAYBE.
Scientists know better than make such blatantly idiotic connections on pure speculation.
I thought it was just their crappy cable channel that did the dumbest non-science BS. Apparently they can even out-stupid the History Channel.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)shanti
(21,675 posts)nat geo was my favorite channel (dog whisperer, etc.), but over the past few years it has become increasingly filled with right wingnuttery. have definitely noticed a huge increase in military/police oriented shows, which i refuse to watch. really, there's not that much to watch on cable anymore; i'm considering dropping it.
thesquanderer
(12,000 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)I have a bridge for sale, cheap.
How many times are people going to buy into some stupid notion, with no proof, and what kind of rag is the National Geographic turning into, by spewing such bovine fecal matter?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Well, anyone not in the forward 3 compartments, or standing too close to glasswork, etc.
tclambert
(11,087 posts)Nasty stuff. It can be found in every cancerous tumor, too.
pansypoo53219
(21,007 posts)is was doomed. neat old book. so yes. now the stars REALLY did it.