New research is explaining nature’s role in the tragedy of the Titanic and is helping to explain how a ship deemed ‘unsinkable’ could sink.

Original theories have emerged 100 years after the event, as the anniversary of the sinking is April 15.

One theory states a superior mirage, formed from the icy waters, created a hazy horizon and shielded the iceberg from lookouts. The hazy effect also prevented the nearby ship, the Californian, from identifying and ultimately helping the Titanic, according to an April 9 article in The New York Times.

Another theory states the Earth’s nearness to the moon and sun caused record tides, which explains why the ship had to navigate around so much ice, according to the article.

‘Dense air near the surface caused light to bend downward to show the object above the horizon. This camouflaged the outline of the iceberg, and that’s why they didn’t see it earlier,’ said Tim Maltin, author of the new book ‘A Very Deceiving Night.’

Lookouts on the Titanic that night claimed it was a clear night, except for some haze. But Maltin’s research unearthed that molecules in the clear air scattering light caused the haze. Because the iceberg was the same height as where the lookouts climbed, the tip could not have reached higher than the haze, therefore preventing an advance warning that it was there.

‘At one mile away, the iceberg wasn’t miraging at all, but the sea behind an object removes the contrast,’ Maltin said. ‘The distance looked hazy and made it seem like the iceberg came out of nowhere.’

Maltin also said he believes the mirage effect distorted the Titanic, making the crew on the Californian mistake it for a smaller vessel and not come to its aid sooner.

‘When an object looks nearer, but not bigger, it appears smaller. This made the Titanic look 400 feet, not 800,’ Maltin said.

Maltin said his research takes the blame off of any involved with the cause of the Titanic’s sinking. Cathryn Newton, dean emerita and professor of interdisciplinary sciences in the College of Arts and Sciences at Syracuse University, said she agrees there were other factors to blame for the sinking.

‘There’s almost always more than one big factor in a shipwreck like this. Almost always that factor is the ocean itself,’ Newton said.

Although it has taken 100 years for these theories to emerge, Newton said she is excited about these developments and appreciates the attention oceanographic factors now play in explaining the sinking of ships.

‘We are now much more attuned to ocean processes in shipwrecks,’ Newton said. ‘That’s what’s changed. People interested have realized the ocean itself is a character in a great portion of sinkings.’

Newton said the science of today is now catching up with the reasoning behind the sinking.

San Diego State University astronomy professor Andy Young, who Maltin cited as an aid to developing his mirage theory, said he is also not surprised it has taken so long to discover the mirage effect.

‘First, somebody had to think of the possibility of mirages on the night Titanic sank,’ Young said in an email. ‘It often takes a long time for ideas to occur to someone. It took years before Tim took up the search, and dug into the archives and the log books to find the bits and pieces of evidence buried in old weather records and ships’ logs, and put them together.’

Though Young said he is appreciative of the attention the mirage effect on the Titanic has received, he said he does not rule out the possibility there is still more to learn about the sinking.

Said Young: ‘The recovery of rivets and other physical pieces of the remains allowed the sub-standard nature of the ship’s construction to come to light. There might be other such discoveries to be made.’

kfluttma@syr.edu 

Published on April 17, 2012 at 12:00 pm