chat why did this video get so many views also stop getting so caught up in the animation of the sinking. i literally never cared about it in this animation
According to Oceanliner Designs' channel, the ship broke in half when it reached an angle of around 25 to 30 degrees, not 45 degrees. That would have been too much for the structure.
@@Reimu__Hakurei Haven't ever heard of such a "figure of speech" like calling 102 years "a decade". I'd rather assume you made a mistake and intended to say "decades" or "a century".
Very nice! One small thing is that funnel two was meant to explode not collapse like the others also the breakup needs to happen at a lower angle, overall a nice job. 9.6/10
Interesting How did you make this? When I use Cell fluids they absolutely despise any objects straight above the fluid, making it difficult to have a scene like this. or water flowing undernath something.
Imagine being below deck in the back half and trying to find the stairs to get to the outside, only to watch the wall in front of you break away with the front half.
This is incorrect, as are almost all attempts at simulating this because everyone thinks the stern broke off and feel down. That never happened. The Only witness whose description of the sinking perfectly predicted the orientation of the wreck and the damage to it was Thayer. As she took on water she settled deeper and displaces even MORE water. Meaning as she sank, the amount of dry space below the waterline HAD to increase to match the amount of water she took on. For every ton of water that flooded in, she had to displace an ADDITIONAL cubic meter of water to her normal displacement. She got HEAVIER and so had to increase her displacement. Since the water was mostly in the forward half of the ship. This meant the Stern was providing more than half of the buoyancy to keep her at the surface. As the water flooded into the midships boiler rooms, you have to imagine that most of her upper decks, now below water, are still dry, but not providing enough buoyancy. The Stern is nOT lifting into the air, its being dragged deeper as its dry spaces provide ever increasing displacement. The force acting on the hull is not the negligible weight of the stern, its the force of buoyancy pushing the stern UP to hold the entire weight of the ship plus all the water she is shipping at the surface. Instead of the 55,000 tons she weighs dry, she now weighs 120,000 tons with all the water. The stern is being pulled so far under water that it’s being pushed upwards with 100,000 tons of force. The Bottom plating pulls apart, dropping a 20 long foot by 90 foot wide section of the bottom to the sea floor and spilling her last row of boilers as water rushes into the engine rooms and last boiler room. Without the bottom holding it, the stern is pushed up as the center of the ship drops down, crushing a wide wedge shaped area of the superstructure between the bow and stern sections… but this break occurs below the water line. The BREAK is what lifts the stern out of the water the first time. And as the last bits of steel on the side are mangled and sheared apart, the bow drops down and away imparting a slow spin to the stern, as it drops back down into the water, with its broken end still submerged. The stern which had been dry until the bottom parted, takes on water in the open end rapidly and that water and the massive weight of the engines gradually lift the stern back up to near vertical. The stern alone is still displacing her own weight in water, with a lot of dry space below sea level… but as the air left in the stern finds its way out, the water comes in, and when the dry space in the stern is no longer able to displace her increasing weight, she slips below the surface. That is how she broke. The force of buoyancy in a flooding ship grossly exceeds the entire weight of the ship.
@@user-wr6yr7dh1t A fluid simulation showing the wrong thing. A fluid simulation ought to be able to take into account the force of buoyancy, which, for example, is what tore the pilothouse, the ceiling over the grand staircase, and the funnels loose. Watch videos of the Japanese Tsunami. The water does not even get up to the windows before the houses are FLOATED off their foundations. Snapping bolts and pulling bolt heads thru wooden sills like they are butter because of the tremendous force of buoyancy. Afloat, the Titanic drew 32 feet of water. That means 32 vertical feet of her hull was pushing her own total weight of water out of the way. The weight of the ship and everything inside it. As she took on water, that added to her weight and she had to have even MORE dry hull below sea level to push that weight of water aside and stay at the surface. She was designed to withstand buoyancy of around 150% her dry weight. When she broke, she had shipped more than her entire weight in water. Normally, the ocean pushes up on Titanic with 55,000 tons of force. Just before she broke, the ocean was pushing up on her with 120,000 tons of force, with most of that force acting on the stern half of the ship. The Bottom plating parted in tension and allowed an enormous amount of water into the engines and last boiler rooms. And her stern was bent upwards, crumpling the upper deck superstructure and folding her steel plating until it tore loose on the sides, ( below sea level where witnesses did not see the break ) When the bow finally tore loose the stern then dropped partway back down, only to fill rapidly and lift back up, the weight of her engines acting like the weight on a pendulum. People see simulations and pictures and they imagine the water level INSIDE the ship is even with the sea level outside the ship. But that wasn’t the case. As she settled deeper, the water level inside the ship was 40 feet BELOW sea level, until she broke. Otherwise, she would not have still been at the surface.
Ok. Hear me out. The Double-bottom WAS connected after the break-up. BUT only for a VERY short time. The INSANE weight of the bow would’ve broke the double-bottom in SECONDS.
@@lochlanmuir2291 Not possible. The mass of water shipped was more than double the weight of all the steel. The stern was dry and so would have weighed less than half the original displacement of the whole ship. The ship was being held up by an upward buoyancy force matching the weight of the ship plus the weight of all the water she had shipped. There was still dry spaces in the upper decks all the way forward, just not nearly enough to hold the front of the ship above water. But the bulk of weight of the shipped water was amidships, in the 90 foot wide boiler rooms. The force acting on the ship was bending her UP at the stern. And just aft of her forward engine bulkhead her side and deck plating was only riveted together up to the top of the water tight bulkheads. ALL the side plating and deck structure above that was overlapped, but NOT riveted to act as an expansion joint. Simulations keep showing the upper decks TEARING apart when the stern breaks down, but that is NOT what would have happened. The upper decks and side walls would have pulled apart cleanly at the expansion joint because nothing held them tightly together except slip fittings. The image people keep getting wrong is that of the stern lifting out of the water before the break. That did not happen. Rather, she just kept settling deeper with the bow end tipped downwards because the stern had most of the buoyancy, Her stern only lifted a little bit out of the water before the upward force pulled the bottom plating apart in tension. You can see the bottom, on the bottom, and it was subjected to NO bending stresses at all. The upper decks and superstructure did NOT offer any resistance to the bending of the lower hull because, again, they were NOT riveted across the expansion joint. The reason they were so badly damaged is because they were slid INTO one another like shuffling a deck of cards, This action would have Deck plating tearing out all the corridor and room walls between the decks, which is why all the decks near the break are collapsed onto each other, because their vertical supports were cut by the interleaving decks, which were then and then bent upwards against each other, crushed and crumpled together. This is why large sections of the side plating is broken off as they buckled against one another as the ship folded. The stern did not break off suddenly. It was SLOWLY FOLDED upwards, as all that steel decking and side plating gradually gave way and it was THIS action that lifted the stern clear of the water the first time. With the massive opening amidships below the waterline, the still dry decks of the bow quickly flooded, and the bow started to swing downwards, bending the already bent and fractured side plating at the expansion joint the Opposite way and finally breaking the bow free, and then the stern fell back into the water with its broken end still just below the surface. Because it had been folded up out of the water, it did not flood right away thru the large opening, just the engine room which, with the added weight of the engines, is what kept her broken end submerged and out of view, but also meant there was no ready exit for all the air still in her. So the water could come in the broken end, but only as fast as the air escaped. Filling from the open end caused her to tip stern nearly straight up as the engine mass acted as a ballast keel. That is the image to keep in mind. She was being held up at both ENDS as her greatest volume amidships became heavier, and bent her like a banana. Once more, for 70 plus years everyone thought she was in one piece on the bottom because a handful of eyewitnesses did not see the break in her hull. So the stern could NOT have broken off, downwards. The ONE witness who sailors aboard the Carpathia thought was the most reliable and so they drew up his account in pictures said the stern broke down, the very tip of the bow came up briefly and then after the bow fell away the stern spun around 180degrees and sank in the opposing orientation. EXACTLY how she was found with all damage consistent with the ship folding Down in the middle and up at the ends. An eyewitness account that accurately predicts what will be discovered decades later is the most realiable account, and Thayer’s account is what agrees with the physics of the forces she was under.
chat why did this video get so many views
also stop getting so caught up in the animation of the sinking. i literally never cared about it in this animation
Shut up nerd
it because of final plunge
"How much time do we have"
"3 seconds..4 seconds at most."
And using the pumps will only gain us microseconds at best
@@maxeo2644 They say while underwater 😆
I believe you may get your headlines Mr. Ismay *gulp gulp*
Women and children f... Never mind...
@@oscarvasquez706 that's not true actually.
According to Oceanliner Designs' channel, the ship broke in half when it reached an angle of around 25 to 30 degrees, not 45 degrees. That would have been too much for the structure.
Girl..
This is a test
@@Nomadik_Animations So? I'm just giving new information.
@@soly-dp-colo6388 eh not really, and also the model was below a 30 degree angle, so whatever
i watch oceanliner desings too
it was actually probably 20-23 degrees
The water effects is probably the coolest thing here, nice job!
cool!
Hi calju :)
@@cochu444yt Hi!
im convinced you have subscribed to this channel 🔥
@TamitySimulations-k6bb holy.
OMG this is epic!😊
Very well done. I will give it 9.5 out of 10. You forgot to make sure it broke up where the 3rd funnel stood as well. I am very impressed though
I really like the movement of the water!
Honestly, it’s inspiring how a decade later new theories and simulations of how it went down on the faithful night in April 15 1912.
A decade later would be in 1922
@@tajniak4335
It’s a figure of speech, if you didn’t catch the meaning
@@Reimu__Hakurei Haven't ever heard of such a "figure of speech" like calling 102 years "a decade". I'd rather assume you made a mistake and intended to say "decades" or "a century".
Very nice! One small thing is that funnel two was meant to explode not collapse like the others also the breakup needs to happen at a lower angle, overall a nice job. 9.6/10
Wow! Great work!
Interesting
How did you make this?
When I use Cell fluids they absolutely despise any objects straight above the fluid, making it difficult to have a scene like this. or water flowing undernath something.
_You are safe in my heart and_ . . .
_My heart will go on and_ . . .
_On_
"How much time to we have?"
"3 seconds 5 at most."
My GPU while watching this: 🔥📈
The sinking never was shown correctly to this day, witnesses on the ship said it never broke in half this way
Imagine how much time it takes to render this.
☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️
This is good. Break angle might have been a little less though?
Imagine being below deck in the back half and trying to find the stairs to get to the outside, only to watch the wall in front of you break away with the front half.
Looks very good!
Its scary to think a ship sank in 21 seconds.
Im surprised this wasn't posted 16 years ago
wheres jack
Not real
Unfortunately that's how it sank in a movie, in reality the break was not visible above water and the angles of sinking never got that high.
The ship didn’t split in half like that
The movement looks a bit unnatural, but nice fluid render.
It did not broke in the middle it broke between funnel three and four
The water scale is too large. Looks realistic for a small model ship, but it would be a lot slower moving to scale. Great physics though.
Try Night time agreed or no?
Can you animate my theory?
I love the break up
Californian better be see him
Im going to slow it down and play the Titanic song. 😢
Ehy did the stern sink like britannic
can you make a real time sinking pls.
Пробач мене що я украв відео але я поміняв назву відео на твій обліковий запис ютуба пробачте
i really want the model dayum bruh
Bro got pc powerful when nasa
GIVE US THE MODEL FILE
Plz do a tutorial
Now do this in real time
What’s the game
Tamity, can u pin me 😔🫶
No
@@TamitySimulations-lk6bbW Tamity
Bro the Title
IT Said Render
99+
This is incorrect, as are almost all attempts at simulating this because everyone thinks the stern broke off and feel down. That never happened. The Only witness whose description of the sinking perfectly predicted the orientation of the wreck and the damage to it was Thayer.
As she took on water she settled deeper and displaces even MORE water. Meaning as she sank, the amount of dry space below the waterline HAD to increase to match the amount of water she took on. For every ton of water that flooded in, she had to displace an ADDITIONAL cubic meter of water to her normal displacement. She got HEAVIER and so had to increase her displacement. Since the water was mostly in the forward half of the ship. This meant the Stern was providing more than half of the buoyancy to keep her at the surface. As the water flooded into the midships boiler rooms, you have to imagine that most of her upper decks, now below water, are still dry, but not providing enough buoyancy. The Stern is nOT lifting into the air, its being dragged deeper as its dry spaces provide ever increasing displacement. The force acting on the hull is not the negligible weight of the stern, its the force of buoyancy pushing the stern UP to hold the entire weight of the ship plus all the water she is shipping at the surface.
Instead of the 55,000 tons she weighs dry, she now weighs 120,000 tons with all the water. The stern is being pulled so far under water that it’s being pushed upwards with 100,000 tons of force. The Bottom plating pulls apart, dropping a 20 long foot by 90 foot wide section of the bottom to the sea floor and spilling her last row of boilers as water rushes into the engine rooms and last boiler room. Without the bottom holding it, the stern is pushed up as the center of the ship drops down, crushing a wide wedge shaped area of the superstructure between the bow and stern sections… but this break occurs below the water line. The BREAK is what lifts the stern out of the water the first time. And as the last bits of steel on the side are mangled and sheared apart, the bow drops down and away imparting a slow spin to the stern, as it drops back down into the water, with its broken end still submerged. The stern which had been dry until the bottom parted, takes on water in the open end rapidly and that water and the massive weight of the engines gradually lift the stern back up to near vertical. The stern alone is still displacing her own weight in water, with a lot of dry space below sea level… but as the air left in the stern finds its way out, the water comes in, and when the dry space in the stern is no longer able to displace her increasing weight, she slips below the surface. That is how she broke. The force of buoyancy in a flooding ship grossly exceeds the entire weight of the ship.
This is a fluid simulation not a sinking theory
@@user-wr6yr7dh1t A fluid simulation showing the wrong thing. A fluid simulation ought to be able to take into account the force of buoyancy, which, for example, is what tore the pilothouse, the ceiling over the grand staircase, and the funnels loose. Watch videos of the Japanese Tsunami. The water does not even get up to the windows before the houses are FLOATED off their foundations. Snapping bolts and pulling bolt heads thru wooden sills like they are butter because of the tremendous force of buoyancy. Afloat, the Titanic drew 32 feet of water. That means 32 vertical feet of her hull was pushing her own total weight of water out of the way. The weight of the ship and everything inside it. As she took on water, that added to her weight and she had to have even MORE dry hull below sea level to push that weight of water aside and stay at the surface. She was designed to withstand buoyancy of around 150% her dry weight. When she broke, she had shipped more than her entire weight in water.
Normally, the ocean pushes up on Titanic with 55,000 tons of force. Just before she broke, the ocean was pushing up on her with 120,000 tons of force, with most of that force acting on the stern half of the ship. The Bottom plating parted in tension and allowed an enormous amount of water into the engines and last boiler rooms. And her stern was bent upwards, crumpling the upper deck superstructure and folding her steel plating until it tore loose on the sides, ( below sea level where witnesses did not see the break )
When the bow finally tore loose the stern then dropped partway back down, only to fill rapidly and lift back up, the weight of her engines acting like the weight on a pendulum.
People see simulations and pictures and they imagine the water level INSIDE the ship is even with the sea level outside the ship. But that wasn’t the case. As she settled deeper, the water level inside the ship was 40 feet BELOW sea level, until she broke. Otherwise, she would not have still been at the surface.
Ok. Hear me out. The Double-bottom WAS connected after the break-up. BUT only for a VERY short time. The INSANE weight of the bow would’ve broke the double-bottom in SECONDS.
@@lochlanmuir2291 Not possible. The mass of water shipped was more than double the weight of all the steel. The stern was dry and so would have weighed less than half the original displacement of the whole ship. The ship was being held up by an upward buoyancy force matching the weight of the ship plus the weight of all the water she had shipped. There was still dry spaces in the upper decks all the way forward, just not nearly enough to hold the front of the ship above water. But the bulk of weight of the shipped water was amidships, in the 90 foot wide boiler rooms. The force acting on the ship was bending her UP at the stern. And just aft of her forward engine bulkhead her side and deck plating was only riveted together up to the top of the water tight bulkheads. ALL the side plating and deck structure above that was overlapped, but NOT riveted to act as an expansion joint. Simulations keep showing the upper decks TEARING apart when the stern breaks down, but that is NOT what would have happened. The upper decks and side walls would have pulled apart cleanly at the expansion joint because nothing held them tightly together except slip fittings.
The image people keep getting wrong is that of the stern lifting out of the water before the break. That did not happen. Rather, she just kept settling deeper with the bow end tipped downwards because the stern had most of the buoyancy, Her stern only lifted a little bit out of the water before the upward force pulled the bottom plating apart in tension. You can see the bottom, on the bottom, and it was subjected to NO bending stresses at all. The upper decks and superstructure did NOT offer any resistance to the bending of the lower hull because, again, they were NOT riveted across the expansion joint. The reason they were so badly damaged is because they were slid INTO one another like shuffling a deck of cards, This action would have Deck plating tearing out all the corridor and room walls between the decks, which is why all the decks near the break are collapsed onto each other, because their vertical supports were cut by the interleaving decks, which were then and then bent upwards against each other, crushed and crumpled together. This is why large sections of the side plating is broken off as they buckled against one another as the ship folded.
The stern did not break off suddenly. It was SLOWLY FOLDED upwards, as all that steel decking and side plating gradually gave way and it was THIS action that lifted the stern clear of the water the first time. With the massive opening amidships below the waterline, the still dry decks of the bow quickly flooded, and the bow started to swing downwards, bending the already bent and fractured side plating at the expansion joint the Opposite way and finally breaking the bow free, and then the stern fell back into the water with its broken end still just below the surface. Because it had been folded up out of the water, it did not flood right away thru the large opening, just the engine room which, with the added weight of the engines, is what kept her broken end submerged and out of view, but also meant there was no ready exit for all the air still in her. So the water could come in the broken end, but only as fast as the air escaped. Filling from the open end caused her to tip stern nearly straight up as the engine mass acted as a ballast keel.
That is the image to keep in mind. She was being held up at both ENDS as her greatest volume amidships became heavier, and bent her like a banana.
Once more, for 70 plus years everyone thought she was in one piece on the bottom because a handful of eyewitnesses did not see the break in her hull. So the stern could NOT have broken off, downwards. The ONE witness who sailors aboard the Carpathia thought was the most reliable and so they drew up his account in pictures said the stern broke down, the very tip of the bow came up briefly and then after the bow fell away the stern spun around 180degrees and sank in the opposing orientation.
EXACTLY how she was found with all damage consistent with the ship folding Down in the middle and up at the ends.
An eyewitness account that accurately predicts what will be discovered decades later is the most realiable account, and Thayer’s account is what agrees with the physics of the forces she was under.
Good need bit of work
Blubblubblub
The snapping is wrong by the way.
That isn’t the point of this animation. I already know it’s wrong.
It's a fluid simulation, not a sinking animation.
There's no factual evidence on which direction it snapped in half
WATER
rip
It is to fast.
слабо реалистично (плохо )