Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: ATM theory testing here. [delayed titanic radio message?]

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,649

    ATM theory testing here. [delayed titanic radio message?]

    On page 12 of this PDF is an interesting story: http://www.gulf-times.com/mritems/st...8607_1_255.pdf May, 2009. One author has credit in the byline and another credit at the very end of the article (syndication). The rest of the magazine looks like normal mainstream articles.

    In 1936 ham radio operator Gordon Cosgrave, recieved messages from Titanic and Carpathia. In London, 24 years later, and with witnesses. Is it scientifically possible? It would involve radio propagation 12 light years out and back. He recieved signals at a time dilation that may relate to the 12 year gap. Second signal set was 4 days later in 1936 and had a time stamp in the signal of 1:20am. Is seems the signals were in 'real-time' though, unless the morse code sent was toggled faster than he recieved it. There is no mention of the speed he heard it. I still haven't researched the wattage and frequencies used in 1912 by the 2 ships, nor anntenae specs. Any input before I continue research?
    Last edited by Pinemarten; 2012-May-05 at 04:04 AM. Reason: typo

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    6,984
    I don't see how this story is possible not because of physics, but because of the messages received.

    There was lot more radio traffic than just Titanic and Carpathia and each sender was using a call sign plus code. Stuff like: "CQD DE MGY". Unless you knew what you were listening to, a radio operator would have no reason to know "MGY" was Titanic nor would he know that Titanic used CQD many times before sending the letters SOS. Before Titanic, MGY was a call sign for a completely different ship and Titanic had the callsign MUD. A few years before the disaster, SOS was adopted as a distress call, but some operators didn't use it. The Titanic did use it, but only to emphasis the use of the prior distress call CQD.

    There were over 15 transmitters attempting to relay information on the disaster. Why did he only get messages from Carpathia and Titanic?

    There is also the issue of "dated" signals. When you are speaking live with another radio operator, why would you say "Hey, did you know its Monday April 15 1912, 11:40 PM? Oh, yeah. We are sinking."
    Solfe

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You're only given one little spark of madness. You mustn't lose it." Robin Williams.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,138
    Someone was pranking him. Some people claim to get messages from Aliens and spirits, do we think they are real?
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    13,886
    The Pirokin Effect

    "They don't chop liver in Philadelphia?"

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    4,217
    Sounds like the origin of a story in my
    Beezer comic 50 years ago. A tramp steamer
    in the north Atlantic recieves SOS messages
    and sees a radar blip. They sail towards but
    the radio goes quiet and no radar blip. The
    Captain looks at the date and drags a book
    from his trunk in his cabin with the story.
    Bit of a ghost story!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,649
    It seems quite an elaborate prank. Only the time was in the message. I am tempted to do the math on the time dilation. 12 years to 4 days compared to 11:40 pm on the 4 day old message versus the times of first messages Titanic sent. I doubt a prankster would bother with that math. It would be very strange if it worked out. Then I may time some morse code signals and see what speeds he should have recieved the toggles. Btw, my isp is really flakey right now. The techs can't get here until Sunday to fix it. Sorry I took so long to respond.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,672
    Don't forget to calculate (estimate) the signal strength of a radio message that's gone 12 light years out, then 12 light years back - and compare that to the reception capability of a ham radio circa 1936.

    P.S. include the spread of that signal (or if focused somehow, the odds of the focused signal getting to that particular radio while someone was listening.)
    Last edited by pzkpfw; 2012-May-03 at 10:48 PM. Reason: P.S.
    I don't see any Ice Giants.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,914
    Single observations that are not repeatable are not science; they are anecdotes.
    I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

    "Mainstream isnít a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,649
    The signal strength could be helped by 'radio propagation' and a science about signals being trapped and stored (I lost the wikipedia article link to that). How strong do waves need to be that we recieve from 24 light years out? He could have been using a 'ground plane' antenna and used the Atlantic Ocean as the ground plane if he had a good electrical connection to it. I still need to look up frequencies and wattage of outputs for the ships. Does having witnesses for the second reception count as repeatable?

Similar Threads

  1. Testing the Spiral Density Wave Theory
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2011-May-29, 11:40 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2009-Apr-10, 07:10 PM
  3. Titanic doomed by fire raging below decks, says new theory
    By Sticks in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 2008-Apr-21, 09:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: