Skip to comments.Titanic disaster blamed on Moon
Posted on 03/06/2012 8:07:52 PM PST by BenLurkin
Although a collision with a vast tower of ice ultimately brought the passenger liner to its sticky end, it was a freak lunar event three months earlier that put the obstacle in its path, a new study claims.
An incredibly rare combination of astronomical factors including the closest approach of the moon to Earth in 1,400 years caused an unusually high tide in January 1912, researchers found.
This once-in-a-lifetime swell would have swept a vast field of icebergs from their normal resting place off the coast of Canada and caused them to drift further south.
It would have taken them almost exactly three months to reach the shipping lanes where the Titanic sank on April 14 at a cost of 1,500 lives, the scientists reported in Sky & Telescope magazine.
Unusually high tides known as spring tides are caused when the moon and sun line up in a way that means their gravitational pulls are enhanced.
On January 4, 1912 the Moon came closer to Earth than at any point in the previous 1,400 years, and reached its nearest point within just six minutes of a full moon.
This rare coincidence happened just a day after the Earth made its closest annual approach to the sun, and the freak combination of factors against overwhelming odds caused a record spring tide.
This would have been enough to dislodge huge numbers of icebergs from the shallow waters around Labrador and Newfoundland and sweep them into southward currents, leaving them just enough time to reach the Titanics path by April, the researchers said.
Prof Olson added: We dont claim to know exactly where the Titanic iceberg was in January 1912 nobody can know that but this is a plausible scenario intended to be scientifically reasonable.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Always another theory.
Some “professors” don’t have enough to do.
Thank Heavens it is Bush’s fault!
It's also been documented that the extraordinarily eerie, flat calm conditions of that night contributed to the inability to spot the berg.
BLEW IT UP!!!
That’ll stop all the werewolf attacks, too.
Did the Moon cause the shoddy rivets and overall poor shipbuilding as well?
Here's an article addressing your point concerning the materials and workmanship, albeit from The New York Times: In Weak Rivets, a Possible Key to Titanics Doom.
Are there grants involved??
Sometimes God uses a bank shot!
I thought global warming was to blame. :)
An incredibly rare combination of astronomical factors including the closest approach of the moon to Earth in 1,400 years caused an unusually high tide in January 1912, researchers found. This once-in-a-lifetime swell would have swept a vast field of icebergs from their normal resting place off the coast of Canada and caused them to drift further south.Apropos of nothing, aluminum foil is on sale this week.
By the way, did I ever tell you about the time I was on an around-the-world cruise and we ..........oh, never mind, it's time to let the pups out, so I'll tell you next time. : )
Ah yes...the Titanic disaster...or as the offspring of the Lobsters scheduled to be steamed for dinner that night call it “the miracle of 1912”.
and the low water tight locky things/walls...
Because they werent high enough the water was able to reach and flow over into the next room and the next etc very quickly and sank the ship faster...
suposedly it would have stayed afloat longer if that hadnt happened...
Oh and a lack of lifeboats didnt help either...
Way toooooooooooo funny. LOL
I wasn’t aware of the rivet issue (had seen a previous issue on steel quality, with magnesium or manganese content being much higher, causing brittleness in cold water). It is fascinating, thanks
“And the bow, as fate would have it, is where the iceberg struck. Studies of the wreck show that six seams opened up in the ships bow plates. And the damage, Dr. Foecke noted, ends close to where the rivets transition from iron to steel.”
The Carpathia was less than a day away (it arrived the afternoon after the ship had sunk, iirc), so the issue about time-to-sink is pertinent.
also, the California was within visual distance of the Titanic, but had its radio off overnight...so as morning came and the system was manned, it may have been relevant also.
Ah, but it WAS spotted. The problem was that the captain had ordered top speed through a known ice hazard area, so by the time it was spotted, there was no time to miss it.
Ironically, had it impacted the berg dead-on, it would not have sunk.
Which was probably the idea behind the whole set-up, since the "Titanic" that sunk was actually the Olympic that was previously damaged. Had it smacked the berg straight, the forward sections would have crumpled but the ship would not have flooded over the sequential compartments that the side-rip allowed. Then the claim that the ship was "unsinkable" would have been proven, and they would have collected the insurance money for the "Titanic" for icebergs that they couldn't have collected for the Olympic simply smacking into another ship through negligence.
But they had really GOOD lookouts that night, who were on the ball and spotted the berg JUST far enough out to avoid a head-on collision, and enable the slow turning of the ship to juuuuusst rip along the side...
A more likely theory is that excessive cold caused by air borne ash from Katmai/Novarupta in Alaska made for unusually heavy sea ice formation. Of course a very high tide could have contributed to the problem. That year, a major attempt for the south pole was also foiled by unusually cold Antarctic summer weather probably from the same volcanic cause.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.