Titanic - The New Evidence

The 'New Evidence' bit of the title is a tad misleading @ARMANDII - it actually comes out in the documentary itself that all this evidence was available at the time of the inquest, but was swept aside. Yes, the fire was known about - however, it appears that the nature of the fire was not fully understood or disclosed, and they backed their assertions up with scientific analysis, mostly by bringing together a fuels specialist and a metallurgist.

According to the fuels guy, the problem with coal in particular is that it doesn't need an actual ignition source when stored in huge quantity, but rather that it can self-heat to a point where it begins to smoulder and it slowly spreads; therefore, by the time smoke and heat are first noticed, it is likely that it has in fact been burning for days or weeks.

There was also an assertion that the crew knew that there was a fire even before the ship had got to Southampton to pick up, and the vast majority of firemen who had made that short journey then disembarked the vast majority of them were replaced with others. It was documented in the paperwork that the firemen had began moving the burning coal into the boilers as soon as the ship left Southampton, and that they did actually manage to clear it out and saw damage to a bulkhead where it had been 'red hot'; latterly, it is claimed that there was then a fire in the adjoining bunker which they did not manage to get sorted.

Its worth an giving it an hour just to see the different perspective.

 

So you didn't want to sink a lot of money into it then, Martin??

 

Yeah, you'll have to forgiven my long ingrained cynicism, FC. Long distance [the Titanic is down at about 12,500 feet] assumptions, assertions accumulating into theories are not something I subscribe to. They didn't even realise that the Titanic could undergo galvanic exchange at that depth so it was all new science to them So, to me, it's all just assertions and assumptions by experts who will push their own theories, and reading into "statements" made by some of the crew who would be under pressure to protect themselves from any blame. Even the evidence of the Passengers is conflicting to each others. So it's an interesting theory but I do feel that a lot has been read in the present facts and evidence to prove that an Iceberg did not cause the Titanic to sink

My problem with that is most of the competition was strapped for cash and we can turn any situation into whatever we want to. There would be a record of any substantial coal fire and humans being humans such news would leak out.

One current theory regarding a different subject is the presence of a Ninth Planet. The Press have taken the theory/idea put forward by Elizabeth Bailey and her team and stated that there is definitely a 9th Planet out there. But, the point is, that it's all based on computer models and there are only "indications" that the 9th Planet is a reality. I'm not saying there's not a 9th Planet but there is no clear or substantial evidence to prove it at this moment.

 

This is the most exciting time for Astronomers, both Professional and Amateurs, as technology is advancing all the time. We're already discovering Jupiter sized planets in other solar systems every other week, and if you consider there are uncountable billions of Stars out there with the latest estimate that there are 3 or 4 planets at least with each star then it's getting more interesting. There's a plan to put a large Radio Telescope out in space solely to observe Exo-planets by 2020 and that will be a huge step forward. The James Webb telescope is due to be launched into orbit in October 2018 giving images from long wave wavelengths of orange/red to near infra red and mid infra red.
Regarding computer astronomy models they are just theories based on mathematical data suggesting the probability of an idea. I have the privilege of living within 7 miles of Jodrell Bank and often visit there to listen to lectures and some of the Cosmologists are quite willing to put an idea to anyone who's nearby. But computer models are probably the most likely "fuel" to start a heated "discussion" between some of the Astronomers who are on opposing sides. I get irritated by the sycophants of particular Scientists/Cosmologists/Astronomers who will gladly seize upon the latest theory by their "Hero" and then when the theory falls flat on it's face, as they often do, they abandon their "Hero" and look for another one.

One of the theories for that is that Jupiter, Saturn were originally a lot further out in orbit than they are now but. due to gravitation and other influences, moved closer in thereby disturbing the other planets orbits, causing the Late Heavy Bombardment that occurred around 4.2 Billion years ago..........but's it's just a theory with computer modelling supporting the theory.

 

True, to a point. But the old axiom of "Garbage in, Garbage out" out still runs true. Computer models and simulations only confirm the likelyhood of a particular astronomy theory rather than confirming it's actuality.