Things to take away from this video: 1. Hollywood = unreliable physics 2. Cats are cute 3. Don't give me whiskey 4. It's sad that the majority of people asking where the "laughing man" clip at :20 was taken from don't know it's from the greatest comic book movie of all time SPIDERMAN 2 :O
As a Naval Architect Student, I have one word on Aaron’s Theory: *No* Update: Now a Graduated Naval Architect working at a firm, I now have two words for this theory: *Hell No*
@Jaydem Phelps Yeah I’ve seen it, it is plausible but doesn’t exactly fit the damage. The back of the bow section simply being crushed by water or collapsing due to fatigue is most likely what happened however. The argument hinges on if the back of the bow looked like that directly after the breakup or later on after she came to rest. I prefer the latter vs the former.
yo want to explain somthing to me about 4:54? since you're a naval architect? if a gas is compressed it's less boyant right. isn't that how they surface submarines?
Was actually the Whitehouse that got them to remove them after Biden got in. Trump was getting like 10000 likes vs 2000 dislikes. For the first 4 months Biden was getting 500 likes to 5000 dislikes. They had hide it. I have no doubt they are the reason. Can search that and watch the dailywire video on it.
I'm a Titanic nerd, not an expert, but even I know one the bow is almost completely flooded, it was never gonna come back up again. Aaron1912 is the one person who wants to bend the facts to "prove" his theory as correct
actually, the depiction in the 2006 theory, RMS Titanic's bow still had SOME air enclosed by water, and when you see the ship break up, the bow starts to rise, but not to the point where the ENTIRE bow comes out of the water, so, yes the bow will not rise completely, but the bow does rise just a bit.
@@The_Lost_And_Forgotten2009 I am aware of that one, but my personal understanding of how the ship sank is that most air pockets wouldn't be enough to raise the bow by a lot, I'm not saying it didn't rise at all.
I’m sorry but aaron1912 is partially correct. Titanic did vbreak. It is possible as it’s happened in history. And the proof that it can be done lies in the fact that titanic grounded on the iceberg, not just side swiped it. The first 5 compartments were breached. That’s why she sank. But it wasn’t just 5 that was breached. It was 6. To explain it better, the first 5 in order were breached and when Murdoch had the hard to port command given it swayed away from compartment 6 but had number 7 breached(grounded on). Evidence is those in boiler room 4 said they saw water coming from below the heated rather than from the watertight bulkheads or the side of the ship which means she grounded. Now, using this info that means compartment 6 didn’t get water in it but because 7 went breached and the bow was pulling her down, that means 8 got flooded and so on cause enough strain to cause a Vbreak. This explains why some say they saw her sink in tanked. She broke in on herself.
@@dominiklehn2866 If the ship was punctured in the middle, the ship would sink evenly like the Lusitania, probably porting to one side and capsizing. The only way a ship that size would v break is that a massive explosion torns the keel apart
If the bow was buoyant enough to float back to the surface, it wouldn't be underwater in the first place, the loss of buoyancy is the only "force" keeping the bow underwater. I never understood the idea of the ship sinking if it's still buoyant enough to float
It takes a lot to ignore the physics of just why the box was under in the first place. Unless some otherworldly phenomenon occurred that would would be heavier than the water and bow combined, it is simply impossible.
"When the ship breaks apart, the weight of the bow will significantly decrease as the stern will no longer force the bow downwards." If the titanic were a hot air balloon: "When the ropes are cut, the weight of the basket will significantly decrease as the envelope will no longer force the basket downwards."
Look at it this way: If Aaron were right and the bow was so amazingly buoyant (like it had lots and lots of air tight spaces in it) why would it have submerged at all? Wouldn't it have simply kept the bow from going under in the first place? And kept the ship more or less level until it just sank? The whole premise makes no sense.
I hate to seem like I'm defending Aaron here, but isn't that also part of the theory? That Titanic sank vertically with far less forward list than is commonly accepted? If I'm misunderstanding then do please correct me, just be gentle!
Yes, it could. If a giant godzilla crawled underneath the submerging bow and lift it up, it would be possible. You know what I mean? I'm being serious about that. Why ya'll won't get it!
..don't forget the "Ship Would've Survived If They Rammed The Iceberg" theory. I literally saw a comment chain on a Titanic Video with everyone agreeing and actually believing that theory. _shivers_
@@hazyhope._. I mean technically there is a chance, but it would of badly damaged the bow, possibly warping walls or bulkheads, and that would prevent the watertight doors from closing, so...
@@hazyhope._. Why what's wrong with that one? Less water tight areas would be breached, maybe only 2, 3 max from buckling, she would have been limping the rest of the way until another ship came to help came to help
The best part about this channel is how it brings a comedic yet serious attitude to history. I browse and watch Titanic videos for hours and to find one that makes me laugh is refreshing, like when he says “because it was full of airrrr.” This is impressive because in the end this ends up being one of the most intelligent and ambitious Titanic channels on RU-vid. Great Stuff
I had a few drinks and to be honest after the first video I made on this subject, I felt it appropriate to cut loose a little. I've seen a few people that didn't appreciate the 'comedic' aspects of some of my videos (mostly the Switch Theory) but overall most seem to have enjoyed them. Thanks for watching and your kind words :D
I'm no good with physics. But even I knew that Aaron1912 was bonkers thinking he could get others to believe him with a channel so underrated he needs to stop. I also knew that a V-Break is impossible when water is already stuck in the 1st 5 compartments.
I want to preface this point by saying that the V break theory is bullshit But the part about volume and car tire air *kinda* made sense, because buoyancy is based on volume and relative density, so the same amount of stuff in less volume would float. Like how 1kg of steel will sink but 1kg of cork will float simply because of volume, or how a scuba tank sinks but the same mass of air in a balloon attached to the tank will definitely float. The right way to debunk the point would be by saying that there is no air anywhere in the bow to expand and lift it back up, and as it went deeper any air pockets would be compressed and become smaller, eventually imploding. Unless something could force out the water in the bow without causing it to explode, and then have the water flood back in very quickly, you aren't getting that V break. There was nothing on the titanic that could have done that, and if you're gonna argue 'boilers', firstly, they make steam, which is water not air, secondly, they were off, and thirdly the boilers are at the rear of the bow segment so it would make the back of the bow rise not the front.
I was also gonna comment this, but there is also an obvious issue with using the car tire theory. The Titanic was not a car, and wouldn't have had tires to let air out of.
Indeed and the comment that it would still occupy the same volume is also incorrect at a depth of just a few meters as in the clip the pressure inside the car tire is higher than the surrounding water. Give it access to a larger volume and it will expand though probably not to anything like the degree shown in that clip car tires have a pressure of only a few hundred kPa the air would only expand to a couple of times the volume in air and the deeper you get underwater the less it will expand as you add around 10 kPa to the external pressure every meter you get bellow water on Earth. Of course, if you had access to a higher pressure gas source you can do better but car tires are actually pretty low pressure so removing the elastic force keeping it contained in the tire won't help it expand far, something like a truck or aircraft tire or a high-pressure gas cylinder could do better. Still bogus as those balloons inflated way more than would be possible with the air pressure in most car tires but it is theoretically possible to inflate balloons from a highly pressurized source and use them to refloat something this technique has been used to recover wrecks and such.
Yeah, that part had me confused. If you throw a co2 cartridge into a pool it will sink but if you use the air inside to blow up a balloon, attach it to the empty co2 cartridge and throw it in a pool it will most definitely float.
I was checking to see if anyone else was going to make this point. You're quite right that it's the VOLUME of water displaced that determines the amount of buoyancy. Sadly Titanic Animations got this point a bit wrong when describing how the air in the tire cannot be used to increase buoyancy. If the air in a tire is allowed to EXPAND into a larger container, thus displacing MORE water, then clearly the overall amount of buoyancy is increased. But the Titanic had no space for compressed air to expand into, nor did it have any air compressed to a pressure higher than surrounding sea pressure.
“If the bow is cut free, it will float up.” Excuse me but why the heck doesn’t it float up already the bow is clearly not a balloon. Also I did research and found that Logan Dublin University isn’t even a thing lmao.
@@zelda_smile There's no Dublin University either. There's UCD, DCU, TUD, Trinity and a bunch of others but no one would call any of them Dublin University because it's just so unclear
The most hilarious thing to me is that the titanic is still there...had it sank the way Aaron says...it wouldn’t be sitting the way it unquestionably is on the sea floor.
This entire video sounds like you've had half a bottle of Jack Daniels just before recording, and yet are still coherent enough to destroy Aaron's video. This is absolutely my comfort video.
"Don,t let the facts get in the way of a good story AND Do not let Physics get in the way of a good script." Media and Hollywood. Great Video. Thanks and Cheers.
Since Class has Resumed i Sent the video of Aaron I mean Logan Dublin University to my science teacher i swear my teacher couldn't speak after listening to his video
Love the justifiable sarcasm in your voice. I think even single cell organisms on Mars would understand basic physics better than Aaron1912. How can a fully flooded bow made of thousands of tons of iron still float. The reason it’s underwater is because it has lost it buoyancy... Duh!
When The titanic sank and I believe that when the ship split the bow SANK gliding down by the belly but it was still connected to the stern which still had mostly air inside causing the back of the stern to rise but then then the bow disconnected from the stern causing the section were the 2 grand staircase and the third funnel to come off the stern, so basically the ship split into three sections and the stern started to sink in a spiral which made it to quick for air to escape causing it to implode killing anyone who was inside. RIP to the 1500 people that died and to any others which were missed like takeaways 😢
4:20 under enough pressure air becomes liquid. Propane tanks store liquid propane. if you empty a protane tank into a balloon it'll have enough buoyancy to lift it's tank and then some. Density changes buoyancy
Hahahaha bruh the fact he made a whole new channel is the funniest thing I've seen in my life, I'm so glad the titanic some how worked it's way through the algorithm to me and I found this hahhaa
Right. He had some great videos of life and music about the 1920's (and also classic Hollywood and actors & actresses). And it's really a shame that those are gone
Hello! Naval architecture student here. 1 I love this video. 2 I completely agree and there is actually another factor that has to be considered. As you pointed out the pressure increases with the depth of the water and buoyancy is in fact a pressure force acting on the surface of a vessels hull. This also means that when you submerge and object in water the deeper it gets the more force or “negative buoyancy” is added to the top of the ship. In order for a vessel to sink the force of buoyancy must be less than the weight of the steel meaning the bow of the ship was already negatively buoyant and then had the additional weight of water added on top of it. The only way a submerged object can suddenly pop back up is to have a force removed from the top of it like pushing a basketball under water. Unless Godzilla was pushing down on the top of the bow, she went down on her own and therefore no external force to remove= no more floating for you. Anyways great video, you just gained another subscriber.
Aaron1912/Logan Dublin Univeristy, 2:21: "The bow still has buoyancy" Me: "Hello, Police? I'd like to report another one for the insane asylum. . .you'd better bring a lot of straight jackets."
Just for your information: You were also correct (as a biology graduate who had to study physics, and took engineering courses on hydrology and fluid mechanics) when you said that the bow "gained weight" which decreases buoyancy. The increase of weight due to the water entering the ship will decrease the buoyancy of the ship. It goes hand in hand. EDIT: Can I add that the bow didn't really change much because it was already full. It still looks a bit like the original bow when the wreck was discovered. If the bow was buoyant, wouldn't the bow have been destroyed?
I still say you're wrong. How do you not understand that the water is buoyant (floating) within water? Any part of the ship that is submerged, any water in it isn't pushing down on the ship. Its just floating within the body of water. Gravity is pushing down on the ship with no buoyant force to counterbalance it. Gravity is pulling down on the water but that is equalized by gravity pulling on the whole ocean. To prove my point, consider this: weigh a rock submerged under 1 foot of water. Weigh the same rock submerged under two feet of water. It weighs the same. The amount of water sitting on top of it will only affect the pressure it experiences but will not affect its weight at all. If it did, we would never be able to raise anything off the ocean floor. An alternate experiment: Take a bird cage and weigh it. Then weigh it half way and fully submerged. If I'm right, it will slightly lighter partially submerged and lightest when fully submerged. That's because even though it is fully submerged, it is still displacing some water so it would be lighter by the amount of water displaced.
@@Nash1a At the same time, I can also argue the weight differences between our air on Earth vs. the water that entered the Titanic. I will use the full vs empty bottle logic. What is heavier? An empty bottle or a full bottle of water? As water fills the bottle, the bottle weighs more. That same thing happens with the Titanic. As the Titanic fills with water, yes buoyancy is lost but also the filled up Titanic with water will weigh down the Titanic more. Now as far as the weight of rock being the same at 1ft and 2ft down, it's due to this thing called object DENSITY. A filled solid object will have the same density, which will make that object have the same MASS no matter how far down it goes. But a different matter will occur if the rock is porous, in which the wet rock filling the cavities will make the rock heavier than the dry rocks by weight. Remember, both air and water have weight. Water is heavier than air though. EDIT: I will also add the vaccum situation. First to my bottle example. The bottle will weigh less if I remove air through vacuum sealing and removing air. That empty bottle will weigh less. Now if I put the Titanic in vacuum conditions, the weight of the Titanic will be less than the gross weight reported, because air is removed. Air has weight.
For brevity, I failed to say something. I would concede that while water is flowing into the ship but the ship is not yet fully submerged, THEN YES, the ship would be heavier for the weight of the water. Its only after the ship it fully submerged that the water is floating within water and not a part of the mass of the ship. But your bottle analogy doesn't hold water (lol) Sorry, I had to say that. That bottle analogy would assume we are lifting that ship out of the water. IF you were to lift the flooded ship out of the water THEN sure you would include the weight of the water trapped within it. But that is not what were talking about. We are discussing the forces upon the ship causing its break up. So were not lifting it out of the water. And the water floating within a fully flooded compartment is not adding to the weight of the ship. I edited my comment but possibly after you started writing yours. Consider my bird cage analogy. Weigh a bird cage out of the water, half way submerged and fully submerged. It will actually be lightest when fully submerged. Being flooded with water doesn't increase its weight at all. BUT because even while flooded it still displaces some small amount of water, it will weigh slightly less while flooded than outside of water.
Please don't mistake my disagreeing with you for disrespect. You're giving my brain a great workout and I'm enjoying every minute. So Thank you! But consider this: What is heavier? A sealed glass bottle full of air or a sealed glass bottle which has had the atmosphere removed? Will both float? I would say yes. The air is mostly irrelevant since the shape of the bottle will displace the water necessary to allow it to float. But the odd thing is the sealed bottle without atmosphere will be more buoyant because it will be lighter than the sealed bottle with air.
@@Nash1a There is nothing odd about a sealed bottle containing vacuum being lighter than a sealed bottle containing air. Air has mass, and therefore weight. Even hydrogen is heavier than vacuum. Like you pointed out yourself, water _will_ add to the weight of a ship, until it is completely filled - at which point the buoyancy is equal to the volume of the hull itself, sans space. So a steel ship full of water would have the same buoyancy as a solid steel ball of the same mass. Timothy was not wrong. "The increase of weight due to the water entering the ship will decrease the buoyancy of the ship." - that statement is absolutely correct.
I honestly love how far you go, and how you go in depth with your details and give so much correct information against "Logan's" false info. As soon as I saw this video in my suggestions, I had to watch it immediately.. your videos are pure gold!!
As I Titanic buff ever since I was a kid back in the 70's before Ballard even discovered the wreck, I totally agree with you. But seriously, Maybe it's time to let it go.. 1912 is a dumb arse and anybody with any common sense knows it... Meantime your the one who might be stating to act a little obsessed with this issue.. Don't let it ruin your life Dude.
5:00 This is wrong. But in relation to Titanic, it actually strengthen your position. Compressed air is less buoyant considering you have more air in the same space. Letting the air expand in a baloon under water will make it more buoyant. The scene in the movie is not wrong, given that the pressure in the tires provide enough air. As recreational diver, I have used this principle to pull trash from the ocean, trapping air from the tanks into small bags. It is also used in try-suits, which is why you need a certification to use those, as it can be hard to controll. if you over-compensate at a depth, you will accelerate faster than you intend going up to shallower depths. It is also why your lungs burst if you hold your breath while surfacing doing scuba diving. In the same way, but in the other direction, air trapped inside Titanic would compress as the ship goes down. If the bow section had some buoyancy on surface level, but were pushed by the stern, this air has compressed and the ship is going towards even more negative buoyancy. There is an interesting piece of physics to the stern. It sank so fast that the air compressed faster than the flow of water could replace the air. In the bow, the air could escape, meaning it was indeed not capable of floating at all.
I was wondering if changing containers would affect anything because you have now displaced water over a larger surface area? It seems like it would increase buoyancy, but I don't have enough knowledge to even have an opinion on the subject.
As someone who knows relatively little about physics and the sinking of the Titanic, but is prone to nerd-rage about people who are aggressively wrong on the internet in my own fields of interest, I found this incredibly entertaining and relatable. And I feel like I learned a few things, between this and your first Aaron1912 video. Well done!
4:45 “same volume inside the balloon as in the tire” hang on thats not true, inside the tire, the tire itself maintains that pressure, in the balloon, the balloon would expand and contract until the pressure equals that of the surroundings, in this case the water. With high enough air pressure and shallow enough water and an appropriate balloon, that could absolutely floats the car. Exchanging air pressure for volume is more or less how subs float themselves. It’s also how just filling balloons from a tanks of helium works, high pressure gas inside the tank is let into the balloon, pressure goes down, volume goes up.
That's partially true, but the volume of the tyres does change according to how much air is inside them. And even if that were not the case, there isn't enough air in the tyres to fill a balloon of sufficient size to raise a car. Not least because the balloons will themselves be subjected to underwater pressure, and thus not be the same size they would have been on the surface.
I will say you have the tires part wrong. You have to remember that under pressure the airs density goes up. Meaning it's buoyancy goes down. This is why scuba tanks gain positive buoyancy as you empy them. So releasing air from a pressurized container into a lift bag will change the buoyancy of the air. No there isn't enough air in the tires to float a car, but the physics of that isn't wrong. This is why we can use lift bags and compressed air to recover ships. Otherwise his physics is insane and the guys completely wrong.
Yup he was way off on the compressed air part. Him missing that and the water reducing buoyancy rather than adding weight part makes me question how much of the technical details he actually understands.
Making different channels, trying to appear to be someone else in order to praise yourself... wow. That's a special kind of sad. I honestly wonder why he's going through all that effort. If he craves recognition that much, he better ought to invest time into researching things without the use of Hollywood.
If you fill a bucket full of water and put it into water it sink. Right? this mans logic is that if a bucket is full of water, it wont sink. but if its not full, its gonna sink. basically aarons logic
Actually the image at 8:56 disproves Aaron's theory. If you look where the bow detached from the center you can see how it the bow was bent downward and caused a huge pucker in the port hull. That can't happen if the bow lifted upward. It's caused from the non buoyant bow heading down and the stern and center sections trying to remain afloat. Take anything and bend it in a horseshoe shape with the ends pointing down and it will do that same distortion before it breaks.
You are *incorrect* about the air balloons, however. Yes, the *volume of air can be increased* if it changes containers--and this would absolutely affect buoyancy. This is exactly how submarines use ballasts to resurface. They don't bring any "extra" air on board with them---they release compressed air to displace water.
I was just going to make this exact comment. It's all about pressure and density. Air with enough pressure can replace water and still be less dense than what it displaced.
Just a Quick question, absolutely no expert. But if the bow had enough buoyancy to lift it up why did the ship sink in the first place? Isn’t this the first thing making the ship sink? Hit iceberg, flooding, lost buoyancy and start to sink?
arron1912 : Titanic sank because of feral rabid hamsters who chewed a hole in the ship and climbed into my aft....i mean the ships aft. Everyone else : *Facepalms*
I had to pause “ rainbows shoot out of his asshole” I truly love that someone else exists who would use that phrase Rob describe the absolute ignorance of people nowadays. I love you! And I’ve always loved Titanic
Something that confirms at least part of Aaron1912’s theory is that while Titanic was breaking up, the stern settled back level with the water. However, because the keel was bent up and the top two decks were torn in half, the weight of the ship rested almost entirely on B deck and its double-reinforced shell plating. So, as the stern settled back, by the strength of B deck holding almost the entire ship together, the buoyant stern pulled the flooded bow up ever so slightly before B deck finally gave in to the enormous strain and snapped, thus tearing the bow, fore tower and aft tower off of the now-flooding stern in a freefall to the sea floor. I’m not saying a V-break actually happened because I’d label myself a fool for doing so. What I’m saying is while the flooded bow couldn’t ever have risen all the way out of the water it was pulled up a fraction during the breakup.
Well I mean, adding water to a ship does increase it's overall displacement, it adds weight to it and takes away it's bouyancy to the point it becomes neutrally and then negatively bouyant, hence sinking. Ofcourse the ship itself stays the same weight...but its overall displacement does go up the more weight is added to it, in the case of a sinking ship, that would be water. X volume of air is contained in the ship and displaces Y amount of water. If I then start replacing the air with water in the ship's interior, it's displacement will grow, as will it's density sense I have more matter occupying the same amount of space. The more dense an object, the less bouyant it will become till it sinks. So you were not really wrong in saying the ship's weight increased because the amount of matter inside the hull does increase do to the water displacing air in the finite volume of the ship. More mass in a defined volume increases the ship's density, taking away it's bouyancy.
The best/worst part of his theory is that if it had any basis in fact (which it doesn't) the ship probably wouldn't have split at all, as adding water to the engine room before the bow completely sank (which is what's necessary for the bow to have any buoyancy to rise after a split) would've caused her to sink bodily and not have had the tension and compression forces needed to split her. Why does he have to be so persistent?
I lost it at 'rainbows of truth and justice flow out of his asshole', and startled my cat enough that he fell off the couch. This is comedy gold. (Also good on you for fighting the good fight for truth, accuracy, physics, and... reality.)
Oh no not again. That was my reaction when i saw the video came online. Damn that dude is really full of air in his head. That was my reaction after the video. But seriously how can people still believe what Aaron1912 says? I mean i doesn't even make much sense
His head is full of air is the cause. Probably he is swimming in his fantasy so deep, that the air in his cannot keep up with the pressure which makes his head ..ehm... imploded.
To ultimately disprove Aaron1912's theory there is a video available on youtube by youtube channel Rapidnadion a channel were they mostly presented titanic models they made and showed how they made it sank. They even show a few breakup failures, one of these breakup failures shows a "sagging" sinking were the ship sinks in a very similar manner to Aaron's theory. However the bow takes approximently 10 seconds in the video (which is slowed down btw) to fill with and plunge into the water, bringing the stern down with the bow, however the two parts do not rise to the surface after going below the water, the bow quickly slips below the surface and bringing the partially attached stern down too. So what Aaron wants us to think is that the water filled bow somehow rose back up above the surface after being completely submerged which is almost completely impossible if there is no air trapped in the bow.
if the bow wasn't full of whater then it would have been very cool to see something rising up from whater when you thought that it was under whater lol
