Correlation between mystical sound waves and beached whales?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Bebelina, Nov 29, 2018.

  1. Bebelina kospla.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,036
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,543
    From the article, it seems this was not a sound wave in the ocean but a very low frequency earthquake wave in the Earth's crust. So I very much doubt whales would detect it.

    And it certainly was NOT an "experiment". The article makes it quite plain that this was a natural occurrence, of a previously unknown type.

    So let's lose the incipient bobble-hat conspiracy theory.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bebelina kospla.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,036
    “There are a lot things we don't know.” And as for the November 11 mystery wave, he says, “it's something quite new in the signals on our stations.” (Taillefer 2018)
    “They're too nice; they're too perfect to be nature,” (Robinson 2018)
    "A submarine eruption could produce these low rumblings, but evidence for such an event has yet to materialize. " (Wei-Haas 2018)

    I don't know, it sunds fishy to me.

    Oh god, is bobble-hat my new nick name now? What should I come up with for you? Which one do you prefer?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,052
    origin and exchemist like this.
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,543
    Love it!

    Just right for me on a bad day - which is most of them.
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,543
    No Bebelina, not unless you post a picture of yourself actually wearing one. It's my general label for naive environmentalists, with paranoia about the military-industrial complex (and often obsessed with whales, for some reason).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Back to the science, I notice you quote-mine one sentence, from the whole article, out of context. To show you what I mean I'll quote you the whole passage:

    " “They're too nice; they're too perfect to be nature,” she jokes, although she quickly adds that an industrial source is impossible, since no wind farms or drilling are taking place in the deep waters off Mayotte's shores."

    The whole of the rest of the article is devoted to the theory that these seismic waves are probably due to movement of magma. These waves are in the crustal rocks not the sea, and have a period of 17 seconds. Tiny undulations of the sea floor 17 seconds apart will not be perceived as "sound" by any living creature. The event occurred on 11th November. The whales were washed up on 26th, 2 weeks later.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2018
  10. Bebelina kospla.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,036
    Industrial causes, yes, but exploding submarine is mentioned as possible. Note the words 'theory' and 'probably'. Now you are speculating about what sounds whales can perceive, I'm guessing you have no actual knowledge about this, particularly as this sound was also new, and different from what has been recorded before. The timeframe of the whales being found 2 weeks later ( we don't know when they beached) makes it even more plausible that this sound affected their irrational behavior.


    Mr Skepty McGrumpyface, please refrain from degrading stereotypical gendered framings by using words as 'naive' and 'paranoia' when adressing me. I don't care for it. but I do care for the environment, which is not naive in any way, nor is it paranoid to suspect military and corporate forces for foul play, as they engage in it continously.
     
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,543
    The knowledge I have is the same as yours and it does not remotely support your idea, as I have now explained.

    If you don't care to be stereotyped, it would help if you made some effort not to fit one so exactly. "Gender" (by which I presume you mean sex) is irrelevant to anything I have said, by the way, so don't try to pull that one.
     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,052
    Wait, Bebelina, what on Earth makes you think 'naive' and 'paranoid' are gender-specific? That's not the case where I live. Please keep your sexist views to yourself.

    Eehh, that's pretty paranoid. But let's call it merely grossly premature.

    What you seem to be doing is directly equating 'new and unknown' with 'obviously man-made evil'.

    When you hear hoof beats, think horses before zebras.

    There are a nigh-infinite number of new observations in our world - pretty much all which we will find completely natural explanations for before casting our eye toward evil forces afoot.

    Sure, when there's some evidence pointing toward human intervention, it'll be worth examining; but there is not a scrap of evidence that points that way, whereas all evidence does point toward a natural subsurface seismic event.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2018
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,543
    Guardian report on this today: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/30/magma-shift-mysterious-seismic-wave-event-mayotte

    This article makes the point that seismic waves of this sort are not wholly unknown:
    " Scientists have detected them before after glacier calving, landslides and sudden shifts of magma beneath volcanoes."

    The point here, I think, is that an earthquake involves shearing of a portion of crustal rock. This leads to waves of a particular type, which is not what was seen here. These other phenomena involve something falling or suddenly moving without any shearing action. That seems be why they have landed on the explanation of collapse of the roof of a magma chamber or something like that.
     
  14. Bebelina kospla.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,036
    To call a woman naive is a very common way to attempt to undermine a womans credibility, so by using that word in a conversation with a woman you connotate an anti-feminist misogynist agenda. In this context I choose to identify as a woman to pay notice to this oppressive patriarchal practice.
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,052
    You've been around here long enough to know perfectly well that no one here cares about gender.

    And no, you don't get to play the gender card just because you don't like something.

    That is sexist.

    Exchem pointed out your thoughts are naive and paranoid. You then labeled him as patriarchal for no reason except that you're holding a gender card you're itching to play.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2018
  16. Bebelina kospla.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,036
    I hope you also notice how you put words in my mouth. exchemist assumes I blamed military and Dave further assumes I think it's evil forces.

    But Dave, you seriosuly think military and corporate forces are all 'good' and what do place in that evaluation?
     
  17. Bebelina kospla.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,036
    Dave, please, you are jumping to irrational conclusions. I certainly get to identify gendered oppression when I see it, and sciforums is no exception to the rest of society, quite the contrary, in the scientific discourse women are often set aside, being belittled and ignored. Are you saying that by revealing my gender, or as in this case, choosing to identify with a gender to shed light on a oppressive practice, should 'suit myself' for being attacked? Or are you in denial of oppressive patriarchal practices? It can be shameful to identify as a woman just because of this, and perhaps also reason why people on sciforums are reluctant to identify as women. But this is off topic. Perhaps this discussion can and should be continued in a separate thread.
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,052
    You said:
    "...an experiment of some sort, not a natural occurrence..." (so, man-made)
    then you said
    "...submarine..." (so, military)
    then you said "fishy" (so, suspicious).

    You repeated "Industrial causes ... exploding submarine"

    I'd say we're justified in inferring that you're thinking military or corporate experiments.
    And killing whales (even if inadvertently) is pretty evil.

    But feel free to correct us on our inferences.


    If military is not one of the things you suspect then this is an irrelevant sidebar, right?
     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,052
    Except it isn't.
    Unless you think, as a female, you should get a free pass from being naive and paranoid.

    It's not a gender issue - unless you think that, due to your gender, you are immune to bias and paranoia.

    Agree.
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,633
    If you are referring to this statement: "A submarine eruption could produce these low rumblings, but evidence for such an event has yet to materialize" - that mean an underwater volcanic eruption, not a exploding submarine.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,052
    Heh. Good point.

    "A sub-marine explosion" and "an exploding submarine" are very different things!
     
  22. Bebelina kospla.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,036
    I quoted the article, those were not my opinions. I'm not going into a philosophical discussion about what is good and what is evil, since that is irrelevant to this topic.
    Regardless of the origin of the sound there could be a correlation to the beached whales. It is though likely that if the soundwaves were not natural as indicated that military or corporate forces generated them, or what else could it be? Aliens?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,052
    In light of billvon's clarification, this was an opinion:
    It was certainty an understandable misinterpretation, but before the error was revealed, it looked like a pretty huge leap - one that could easily appear naive or paranoid to someone reading your posts - it really looked like you jumped immediately to an illogical place.
     

Share This Page