Discussion in 'CycleChat Cafe' started by Rhythm Thief, 21 Nov 2007.
See here for details.
that link is wrong mate
Sorry, should be ok now.
Now, why did someone else not think of that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i like the way he says it was struck by an iceberg... did it swim out in front of it then?
i'm confused by the spoons though? could they have baled the ship out if they had more spoons?
I have no sound here. so it was all a bit enigmatic to me, especially the ice stuff. Was it saying "How could a metal ship be damaged by ice, because we tried hitting a tiny icecube with a much bigger metal toy ship and the ship didn't break, and anyway the Vikings made their ships of wood and they didn't get sunk by icebergs..."
What a lot of tosh...
And I can't imagine the point of the spoons...
That's about it Arch. All presented in a mock - serious style. The spoons were to show that ice melts at room temperature, whereas metal doesn't, ergo metal is stronger than ice and the Titanic couldn't possibly have been sunk by an iceberg. I believe it.
So when I go skiing and have a high-speed wipe-out, seeing as my skin doesn't melt, as snow and ice do, the friction caused by my skin on the piste should melt the snow, and leave my face unscathed! Or did I miss something - I who successfully failed all my science CSEs!
there are some interesting conspiracy theories around the titanic though.
basically goes like: olympic is launched first, gets badly damaged (bent keel, a matter of public record) and is uninsured (speculation). the white star line switches the olympic with titanic (which is insured) while both are in belfast dockyard, and decides to scupper "titanic" and claim the insurance. plans are put in place by the company to have other company vessels in the locale to rescue the passengers and crew. unfortunately, the crew are not in on it and there are several ****ups which leave the "titanic" sunk with the loss of life on a grand scale. "olympic" goes on sailing until 1935.
i read a book about this and some of the photographic evidence (assuming it is genuine of course) raises some interesting questions.
Isn't there also something about another ship called the Britannic? I can't remember the plot now...
yes, originally to be called gigantic (name shelved post-titanic disaster) she was built and almost straightaway commandeered (sp?) by the military, and was sunk by a mine whilst doing hospital ship duty in 1914.
Isn't that a negative image of the Swiss navy's finest?
wot a load of tosh. what about "mass". it's well known that mass can cause more damage. like for instance, if you get hit by a spark off a sparkler which burns at a very high temperature, about 500 degrees, you don't even notice it, because not much mass, but if you pour water on you that's only 100 degrees it causes a lot of damage because of the mass.
same with an iceberg init? It's got a lot of mass, i mean this things are like underwater mountains, and therefore is very dense. pretty obvious to me it's gonna cause a lot more damage, just down to it's sheer size and density, than a measly icecube.
Can't be arsed to watch Titanic, the most ridiculous film of all time? Then watch The Titanic in 5 seconds. It is genius.
Separate names with a comma.