M. Stradbury wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:41:02 -0500, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Then I guess my little anecdote is moot because a destroyer looks much
smaller than an aircraft carrier or battle ship...

What I had meant, in the OP, was "big ship" (not a life raft or tugboat,
for example, which is what the MythBusters seem to have tested).

To "me", a destroyer qualifies as a 'big ship' (when it's sinking out
from under you); but I was wrong in the definition since the Wikipedia
article said a Capital ship is an "important" ship (so to speak).

What I meant though was a "big" ship (big enough to suck you so far
down, if it's gonna suck you, that you'd drown before coming back up).

I think the most reliable things that came out of this quest
so far we

a) Mythbusters said busted - but they tested what amounts to a
very "tiny" ship.
b) People swim away for *lots* of reasons (all good) not the
least of which are explosions, fire, oil slicks, rigging,
falling objects, etc.

So, the mere fact they're taught to swim away doesn't really
tell us whether or not they're sucked under at the time of
sinking.

I don't actually know if we have a definitive answer that most
of us would agree fits the typical definition of 'scientific'
evidence yet, either way.

But the capital-air-bubbles-aren't-buoyant theory does sound
plausible (it seems to me it would be easy to test with ants
and toy ships or something).

If you can simulate ocean, not just a bath tub with water in it.

I'll keep reading and looking and observing ... until we find
out the answer.