Slashdot Mirror


Earth's Constant Hum Explained

MattSparkes writes "It has been known for some time that there is a constant hum that emanates from the Earth, which can be heard near 10 millihertz on a seismometer. The problem was that nobody knew what caused it. It has now been shown that it is caused by waves on the bottom of the sea, and more specifically 'by the combination of two waves of the same frequency travelling in opposite directions.'"

336 comments

  1. I shall be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ohm-mani-padme-hum

    1. Re:I shall be the first to say by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's not that kind of hum.

      The truth is the Earth is humming just because it doesn't know the words.

    2. Re:I shall be the first to say by KC7JHO · · Score: 1

      Actually the Earth, as it has been proven, is simply a giant Space Mollusk and the hum is simply it's normal communication processes.
      For the literary impaired: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_the_World_Scream ed

    3. Re:I shall be the first to say by ashtophoenix · · Score: 1

      I think it knows the words but we don't understand them...

      --
      Life is about being a Phoenix!
    4. Re:I shall be the first to say by retrorogue · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly why it got kicked off Hollywood week on American Idol.

    5. Re:I shall be the first to say by KUHurdler · · Score: 1

      I'm not being rude, but that was the worst post I heard in this whole competition.

      --
      Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
  2. Constant Hum by MattSparkes · · Score: 5, Funny

    When I'm in a quiet room I can often hear a quiet hum. It started after I went to an Arctic Monkeys concert...

    1. Re:Constant Hum by Fist!+Of!+Death! · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry, they say it changes when the sun goes down...

      --
      Nothing witty
    2. Re:Constant Hum by MattSparkes · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, it gets louder unfortunately. Damn monkeys.

    3. Re:constant hum by solevita · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sorry, but the breakthrough research that explained how some guy's hifi hummed was last week; you probably had a ground loop or something. But this week we're talking about the Earth; it's like your hifi, but more people care.

    4. Re:Constant Hum by solevita · · Score: 2, Funny

      First post, on a story you submitted? You're all over this one! I've got a strange feeling that this day will forever be known as Matt Sparkes day.

    5. Re:Constant Hum by MattSparkes · · Score: 2, Funny

      And it shall be a national holiday, and festive donuts will be consumed.

    6. Re:constant hum by Prune · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's strange, I only get a 60 Hz hum... I wonder what could possibly cause the difference... :P

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    7. Re:constant hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can hear it, the signal is strong . A detector on the ground (strain gauge or microphone plved on the ground connected to a bandpass filter centered on it should allow you to see / isolates this signal on an oscilloscope.
      The bandpass filter necessary to remove other unwanted mechanical vibrations
        It would be interesting to up convert it to an audio frequency thus making it audible

    8. Re:constant hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      60 Hz 50, 100 and 120 Hzare noise due to power lines

      Things like EKG's and EEG's are very sensitive and contain filters to remove these frequencies

      To receive this signal we must filter out other unwanted signals , This is done in seismometers, Taking the concept further we simply center the seismometers filter on 10e-3 Hz and we now have a graphical , output of this wave

    9. Re:constant hum by Prune · · Score: 1

      For crying out loud, I even put an emoticon in the post... of course I was joking. He's in Europe, I'm in North America. 50 Hz vs 60 Hz mains.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    10. Re:constant hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10e-3 HZ is not audible.
        Human hearing begins at 20 Hz , so what is heard from the ground is a harmonic response of this signal
      THat being said whaqt is audible can vary from place to place is steps of .01 Hz (10e-3 Hz)
      for example if the hum is audible at 30 Hz this is the 3000 th harmonic of this earth signal
      the fundamental signal .01 Hz can only be seen .
        Such as on a chart recored or 0silloscope .01 Hz cannot be heard by people.
      this signal can be up converted into the human hearing range by simple elevtonc mixing process,

    11. Re:Constant Hum by 117 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that figures, it's from all the Radio1-listening/Q Magazine-reading sheep at the gig humming along to the bland-but-hummable music churned out from the last year's crop of drivel-producing bands like The View, The Automatic, The Killers, The Feeling etc - in fact the only thing that seperates Arctic Monkeys is that their name doesn't begin with 'The'....

    12. Re:constant hum by thegnu · · Score: 1

      Reckon somebody at the factory didn't understand that the live wire should be on the INSIDE of a motor stator or transformer whenever there is sensitive electronic equipment nearby

      That's the problem with products manufactured in 3rd-world sweatshops: You should never trust a boy to do a man's job.

      *ducks*

      --
      Please stop stalking me, bro.
    13. Re:Constant Hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      At least they're too busy singing to put anybody down...

    14. Re:Constant Hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm all for it!

    15. Re:Constant Hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this is what we get for building all those freakin Mazdas...

    16. Re:constant hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps your outlet was wired backwards.

    17. Re:constant hum by darthnoodles · · Score: 1

      That right there folks, is proof that we need a -1 (missed the joke) moderation.

    18. Re:Constant Hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just figured the Earth didn't know the words.

    19. Re:constant hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By reversing the phase of the power you have created a new hum, out of phase with the earth loop hum that still exists. The two cancel!

      So now you still have an earth loop and the turntable is also probably floating a few volts above ground. Well done.

    20. Re:constant hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about -1(missed opportunity to return to discussion)

  3. So that's what causes it by niconorsk · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've always just assumed it was the Earth purring.

    --
    Nothing is impossible. We just haven't quite worked out how to do it yet.
    1. Re:So that's what causes it by kars · · Score: 1

      I can just -feel- a new picture coming;

      "I has a hum."

      --
      Take life easy: one bit at a time.
    2. Re:So that's what causes it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well that begs the question of who is petting it.

    3. Re:So that's what causes it by bhiestand · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well that begs the question of who is petting it. No, it doesn't.
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    4. Re:So that's what causes it by db32 · · Score: 1

      I would assume growling. Can't be happy about a bunch of us fleas tearing up the skin right?

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    5. Re:So that's what causes it by ineedbettername · · Score: 1

      Whoosh!

    6. Re:So that's what causes it by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Whoosh! Indeed. Go read what begging the question means.
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  4. Ohmmm by mdsolar · · Score: 1, Funny

    The sound of the Earth meditating upon its naval should be a comfort to all of us.
    --
    Spelling, its only fun it you can mess with it.

    1. Re:Ohmmm by BluBrick · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, the sound of the Earth meditating upon its naval should be a concern to all of us.

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
    2. Re:Ohmmm by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      MOST of my many spelling errors are accidental but not this one. The proper response to Ohmmm is Groannn...

  5. please by baldass_newbie · · Score: 5, Funny

    For the love of God, make it stop!

    --
    The opposite of progress is congress
  6. constant hum by ajs318 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I had a constant 50Hz hum emanating from my loudspeakers once. Swapped the brown and blue wires going to the turntable and that cured it. Reckon somebody at the factory didn't understand that the live wire should be on the INSIDE of a motor stator or transformer whenever there is sensitive electronic equipment nearby. Of course, on the Continent, they could just reverse the plug in the socket with the same effect. What's worse is I've known someone wire a high-impedance (50K ohm) mic to a preamp with about five metres of unshielded cable, running in a bundle with mains cables, and not a hint of a hum. Go figure.

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  7. Alternate explanation by mattr · · Score: 1

    That, or it is the power plant of an alien base hidden in the hollow shelf off the Vancouver coast. Or both.

    1. Re:Alternate explanation by Yvanhoe · · Score: 5, Funny

      They didn't say what causes the waves !
      Everybody knows this is Great Cthulhu snoring in his sleep
      Now please lose 2D6 sanity points

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    2. Re:Alternate explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe the Earth just doesn't know the words.

    3. Re:Alternate explanation by twistedsymphony · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They didn't say what causes the waves !
      What did cause the waves?, How do we know that the waves weren't caused by the hum?
    4. Re:Alternate explanation by jhfry · · Score: 1

      Hmm... seems reasonable to me.

      --
      Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
    5. Re:Alternate explanation by alienmole · · Score: 1

      Kind of like how trees waving cause the wind?

    6. Re:Alternate explanation by darthnoodles · · Score: 1
      The words aren't THAT difficult to remember...

      it's a world of laughter, a world or tears
      its a world of hopes, its a world of fear
      theres so much that we share
      that its time we're aware
      its a small world after all

      CHORUS:
      its a small world after all
      its a small world after all
      its a small world after all
      its a small, small world

      There is just one moon and one golden sun
      And a smile means friendship to everyone.
      Though the mountains divide
      And the oceans are wide
      It's a small small world

      (chorus)

    7. Re:Alternate explanation by Alchemar · · Score: 1

      I'm dead again,

      "So the the fifth quintuplet suddenly appears to take his brothers place"

    8. Re:Alternate explanation by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      That one's easy to disprove, since there are places where there is wind but no trees, but nowhere where there are trees moving but no wind.

      However there isn't anywhere on earth that there are waves but no hum, so you can't conclusively prove it that way.

    9. Re:Alternate explanation by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Funny

      its a small world after all

      MAKE IT STOP!!!

      I visited disneyworld once. That damned song scarred me for life.

    10. Re:Alternate explanation by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Maybe those places just have invisible trees, smarty-pants. Have you thought of that?

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    11. Re:Alternate explanation by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Think of the workers. 8 hours a day of that. You'd have to drop acid on your days off to avoid going postal.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    12. Re:Alternate explanation by ashtophoenix · · Score: 1

      Exactly the way we know that the egg came first and not the chicken...oh wait...or was it the chicken first...or the egg...!!

      --
      Life is about being a Phoenix!
    13. Re:Alternate explanation by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Some friends went to Dizzyland. During the "Small World" ride, they sang this filk, very loudly:

      It's a small world after all
      We're not satisfied at all
      We'll go build one not so small
      It's a small, small world!

      The ridemongers were not amused. :D

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  8. 10 millihertz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    = 100 seconds per cycle?

    1. Re:10 millihertz by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, I think it works out to about 36 waves per hour.

      10 milliHertz = 10 * 1/1000 waves per second
      => 0.01 waves per second
      * 60 => 0.6 waves per minute
      * 60 => 36 waves per hour

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
    2. Re:10 millihertz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Tomato, potato. 36 waves per hour is one wave per 100 seconds, or one cycle per hundred seconds or 100 seconds per cycle...

    3. Re:10 millihertz by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That kind of made me wonder how it's a "hum". I mean, ... isn't there some minimum threshold a cyclical process has to meet to be classified as a sound? Does the earth's one-revolution-per-year around the sun count as a "hum"? Does "me coming to work and returning home each day" count as a hum?

    4. Re:10 millihertz by Radon360 · · Score: 1

      Well, I suppose one really bored geologist might have played back the seismograph tape aurally at (very) fast speed.
      Reference: "The Hunt for Red October"

    5. Re:10 millihertz by IthnkImParanoid · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing it's a hum because many scientists have seen it interfering with their data from their super sensitive equipment, whereas your comings and goings have contaminated few, if any, datasets.

      --
      It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
    6. Re:10 millihertz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmmmm

    7. Re:10 millihertz by corndogg · · Score: 1

      It's pretty obvious now! We live on a metric planet, eh?

      --------
      ----
      -

  9. Damn by sharp-bang · · Score: 5, Funny

    So all this time I guess I should have put the tinfoil in my shoes.

    --
    #!
    1. Re:Damn by Andrew+Kismet · · Score: 1

      For some reason I read that in completely the wrong tone.

      "So all this time I guess I should have put the tinfoil... in my shoes!"

      I'm currently at university, and have had to endure hearing every other sentence ending with "in my pants!", so that might explain it...

    2. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, that was funny...

      ...in my shoes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Hm, it's just not the same somehow.

    3. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So all this time I guess I should have put the tinfoil in my shoes.

      You mean you havent been wearing your tinfoil underwear and lead soled shoes that came with the hat?

      tm

  10. Maybe it's just happy? by crosbie · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...as Douglas Adams might have said.

    1. Re:Maybe it's just happy? by laejoh · · Score: 1, Funny

      or maybe it 's just happy ;)

    2. Re:Maybe it's just happy? by Veetox · · Score: 5, Funny

      You may be closer to the truth than you know: $10 (Yeah, I know I'm cheap...) says that researchers will later find out that human activity is impeding the waves and if that impediment continues, it will ruin biological interactions all over the planet... Yeah, you know whats going to happen: monkeys falling out of trees, birds migrating the wrong way, and lesbian women becoming sexually attracted to nerds. Also, hell freezing over.

    3. Re:Maybe it's just happy? by Prune · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Mod parents down for promoting disinformation. Cats don't purr when they're happy. Often cats will purr even when they are even severely injured. Purring actually is an indication they are feeling sociable and welcome attention. There is also some suggestion that cats use it as a healing mechanism, similar to vibration physiotherapy which actually uses similar frequencies.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    4. Re:Maybe it's just happy? by LMacG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who said anything about cats?

      --
      Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
    5. Re:Maybe it's just happy? by Aladrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Amazingly enough, not all cats are the same. My late tabby only purred when he was happy. Never once did I hear/feel him purr before he received the attention he wanted.

      On the other hand, my current cat is the opposite. Purring seems to have nothing to do with being happy. She will frequently walk up to me and just start purring, and generally stops once I start petting her.

      So it's not really disinformation, it's partial information. Just like yours.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    6. Re:Maybe it's just happy? by JargonScott · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ..and lesbian women becoming sexually attracted to nerds...

      Unfortunately they'll be butch instead of lipstick.

      --
      Nuke Gay Whales for Jesus.
    7. Re:Maybe it's just happy? by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Apparently you're unfamiliar with the doors on the Heart of Gold... (and hence the Douglas Adams reference...)

    8. Re:Maybe it's just happy? by beckerist · · Score: 1

      Al Gore?

    9. Re:Maybe it's just happy? by mennucc1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Also, hell freezing over. You forgot Debian releasing 4.0
    10. Re:Maybe it's just happy? by Dharzhak · · Score: 1

      Also, hell freezing over.

      It already has:

      Conditions in Hell, MI

    11. Re:Maybe it's just happy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Unfortunately they'll be butch instead of lipstick.

      It's actually quite fortunate, as nerds are often more lipstick than butch. The universe has ways of balancing things out.

    12. Re:Maybe it's just happy? by nschubach · · Score: 1

      As an above poster mentions, and as one of my favorite Metallica songs (The Call of Ktulu) not having words seems to allude to... maybe there are no words and he's just happily humming... It all makes sense now!

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    13. Re:Maybe it's just happy? by TheJOsh!(tm) · · Score: 1

      and lesbian women becoming sexually attracted to nerds.

      and how is this a bad thing?

      ONWARD TO PROGRESS!!!

      --
      Rise up in the cafeteria and STAB them with your plastic forks!
  11. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    All this time, I just assumed it was because it couldn't remember the words.

    1. Re:Wow by kmx69 · · Score: 1

      What words would those be? stop defecating in my yard? don't piss on my lawn? stop drilling holes in me?

    2. Re:Wow by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Heh - best post of the week, and you had to do it anonymously...

    3. Re:Wow by mmdog · · Score: 3, Funny

      All this time, I just assumed it was because it couldn't remember the words.
      Actually the earth knows the words but was concerned that the RIAA might sue.

      --
      Politicians are like diapers - they should be changed frequently and for the same reasons.
    4. Re:Wow by thewiz · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Earth hums because it can't carry a tune while singing.

      --
      If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
  12. Why? by khristian · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I think these people "researching" it have too free time in their hands...

    (...)This creates a standing wave that "goes thump, thump, thump on(...) Sound more like a kid that's happy for having found out how something works. Well, if that keeps 'em happy, they should go for it ^^
    --
    http://derkosak.blogspot.com - That's a blog.
    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      These are seismologists - the same people who try to predict earthquakes. Any noise the earth makes may have something to do with earthquakes and thus is worth study.

  13. Did ancient greeks know about this? by torrija · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think this is a concept related to Pythagoras' Musica Universalis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musica_universalis. An inaudible sound on all celestial bodies.

    --
    I hate signatures
    1. Re:Did ancient greeks know about this? by kestasjk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, Pythagoras didn't have a seismometer capable of detecting 10 millihertz..

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    2. Re:Did ancient greeks know about this? by AlHunt · · Score: 1

      inaudible sound

      Is this related to the sound of one hand clapping?
      --
      1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
    3. Re:Did ancient greeks know about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how this is deemed as "informative" when it's pretty obvious ancient scientists didn't have precise scientific instruments.

      Good point though (mod as "insightful"). Another question: how could a hum be attributed to planets with no oceans of any kind? Mercury, anyone?

    4. Re:Did ancient greeks know about this? by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      No, Pythagoras didn't have a seismometer capable of detecting 10 millihertz.. Depends on the magnitude of the vibration, doesn't it? If the ground was shaking at 10 mHz with amplitude of 1m, he wouldn't have needed a seismometer. And if it's shaking at 10 mHz with amplitude of 1nm, he wouldn't have been able to spot it, even with a modern seismometer.
    5. Re:Did ancient greeks know about this? by dsanfte · · Score: 1

      Read the article. It's a pseudo-religious mathematical philosophy, not an actual physical phenomenon.

      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    6. Re:Did ancient greeks know about this? by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't a constant vibration cause waves? Is this correlation or causation?

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
  14. Hmmmmmmmm by dcw3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ok, so the waves are making the sound. Now tell us what causes the waves. I didn't notice a source in TFA.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
    1. Re:Hmmmmmmmm by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Thetans?

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
    2. Re:Hmmmmmmmm by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Ok, so the waves are making the sound. Now tell us what causes the waves.

      The exaust ports on the engines.... DUH!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Hmmmmmmmm by Dorceon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Considering how litigation-happy that particular church is, you might have considered posting that anonymously.

      --
      What sound do people on rollercoasters make? Hint: it's not Xbox 360.
    4. Re:Hmmmmmmmm by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Now tell us what causes the waves."

      The answer is "wind" this has been known at least a century, no need to put it in the article. Now you ask what makes wind. This to has been known for a long time, the basic answer at the bottom of all of this is uneven heating of the atmosphere by solar radiation. Why "uneven"? The Earth is not uniform all over it's surface? Why is that? Something about plate tectonics? Why is that? The core is liquid and the "lighter" crust floats on the liquid while the liquid circulates. You can go on forever.....

      But seriously, wind blowing over water causes ripples, the hight and period of the riples depends on the speed of the wind and the "fetch". Fetch being the distance the wind has to act on the water.

    5. Re:Hmmmmmmmm by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      Considering how litigation-happy that particular church is, you might have considered posting that anonymously.

      Yep, I can visualize the civil court system at work here:

      "Your honour, in the case between L Ron Hubbard's Church Of Scientology (plaintiff) versus FormOfActionBanana (defendant)..." It would kind of make the whole point of parody moot, wouldn't it?

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    6. Re:Hmmmmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the tides have something to do with it also...

    7. Re:Hmmmmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't call it a church. It's an orginization at best.

    8. Re:Hmmmmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer is "wind"

      So what is the moon, chopped liver?

    9. Re:Hmmmmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he/she is one of those rare people we like who's willing to stand up for his/her free speech rights in the face of possible private squelching via litigation?

    10. Re:Hmmmmmmmm by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 3, Funny

      He/she wasn't really thinking about it in those terms when he/she quickly typed out a joke trying to score mod points!

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
    11. Re:Hmmmmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not possible. We're talking about things based on SCIENCE!

    12. Re:Hmmmmmmmm by Hamoohead · · Score: 1

      Butterflies.

      --
      "If your parents never had children, chances are you wonât either." -Dick Cavett
    13. Re:Hmmmmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, what specifically causes these specific waves (that cause the worldwide humming phenomena)?

      And don't say wind, as that is far too general an answer.

    14. Re:Hmmmmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surface waves don't propagate to deep ocean floor, which is the subject of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave so you're wrong there.

      Also the atmosphere isn't chaotic simply as a result of an irregular surface. See the Lorentz System.

    15. Re:Hmmmmmmmm by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

      No no no, it's made out of Cheese

      --
      When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
  15. Interesting, but wrong by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Your article was very interesting, but it's wrong. I have a better idea. You see, the center of the earth is full of bees. They make the earth hum and the turtle stack keeps turning to find out what's buzzing. You see? Mine's a much better explaination: explains the humming and the rotation of the Earth!

    --
    Demented But Determined.
    1. Re:Interesting, but wrong by Chtulhu · · Score: 0

      No, no, that's wrong. God makes the sound. MMMkay?

    2. Re:Interesting, but wrong by Prune · · Score: 2, Informative

      This would have been funny except you seem to lack reading comprehension. The article said ten MILLIhertz! That's a single beat every hundred seconds. Bees' buzzing is about three orders of magnitude higher in frequency.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    3. Re:Interesting, but wrong by nyctopterus · · Score: 0

      That would have been interesting except you, sir, are a sad little wanking man.

    4. Re:Interesting, but wrong by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the frequency is the flaw in his comment about bees in the centre of the Earth. You lack humour comprehension.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    5. Re:Interesting, but wrong by johnny+cashed · · Score: 1

      Damn nerds. Oh, wait, this is /.

    6. Re:Interesting, but wrong by HalfFlat · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't think you understand. They are very large bees.

    7. Re:Interesting, but wrong by Salsaman · · Score: 3, Funny

      Exactly. In the same way that the Earth sits on the back of a *giant* turtle. It would be ridiculous to think that the Earth rested on the back of a normal turtle - why, a normal sized turtle would get crushed by the weight !

    8. Re:Interesting, but wrong by Prune · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is. See, the joke is made by that ludicrous proposition. Any unintentional errors detract from it.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    9. Re:Interesting, but wrong by Prune · · Score: 1

      Send me an email, identifying yourself. Write to muthaga@msn.com I'll tell you my address and agree for you to visit me and I'll show you my girlfriends, then you'll see whether I need 'wanking'.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    10. Re:Interesting, but wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, is that why i've been getting all these nekked pictures in my inbox? All this time I thought it was porn adverts... but i guess its been defensive little asshats out to prove their masculinity. Take a joke. And take it over there, and dont bother anyone.

    11. Re:Interesting, but wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asshats? Thats a funny one - you wear an ass on your head as a hat? Does that mean.. you have your head up an ass? :)

    12. Re:Interesting, but wrong by Prune · · Score: 1

      LOL

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    13. Re:Interesting, but wrong by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 1

      I disagree. That would be like saying "In Soviet Russia, the party finds you!" isn't funny because the Soviet Union no lon... Oh, wait.

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    14. Re:Interesting, but wrong by zymurgy_cat · · Score: 1

      No, No, No! The sound is caused by the spirits of dead pirates all saying "Arrgh." His Noodlyness merely alters the frequency so we think it's caused by waves. Yet more proof of his existence.

      --
      -- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
    15. Re:Interesting, but wrong by Dunbal · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Phooey. Those of us who keep the faith know all along that it's a giant dragon imprisoned beneath the Earth, and you're merely listening to his snore. How do you explain earthquakes and volcanoes with BEES? The dragon makes much more sense. Convert now, unbeliever!

            While we might accept the turtles, our wise men actually explain to us that the last turtle is actually standing on a dog that is chasing it's own tail - which explains the rotation.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    16. Re:Interesting, but wrong by saider · · Score: 1

      Harmonics, my dear friend. Harmonics.

      Or Giant Bees.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    17. Re:Interesting, but wrong by alienmole · · Score: 1

      You will change your mind when you feel the sting of a thousand giant bees from the center of the Earth.

    18. Re:Interesting, but wrong by Unnngh! · · Score: 1

      No, no, you're not going to fool me. It's nothing but turtles, all the way down!

    19. Re:Interesting, but wrong by Prune · · Score: 1

      Harmonics are always at a higher frequency than the fundamentals. Of course, if some bees flap the wings at X Hz and some at X.01 Hz, the beat frequency would end up being the ten millihertz. That, or the giant bees idea. :)

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    20. Re:Interesting, but wrong by mistahkurtz · · Score: 1

      it's...covered in bees!

      --
      not only is time travel possible, it's irrelevant.
  16. Whales by Fist!+Of!+Death! · · Score: 5, Funny

    It is probably driving the whales crazy. They think it's the Voices...

    --
    Nothing witty
    1. Re:Whales by Prune · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This would have been funny, except the ten MILLIhertz frequency (one beat per hundred seconds) is a couple of orders of magnitude lower than what whales can hear.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    2. Re:Whales by Attrition_cp · · Score: 2, Funny

      Jesus, you must be the life of parties.

      --
      Touched By His Noodley Appendage.
    3. Re:Whales by Fist!+Of!+Death! · · Score: 1

      Damn missed that vital fact.
      In that case they probably have a constant suspiscion that somewhere in the deep blue ocean another whale just farted.

      --
      Nothing witty
    4. Re:Whales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me tell you something: People who say "this would have been funny," "millihertz" and "orders of magnitude" in the same sentence NEVER get any ass.

      And let me tell you something else: As soon as you get your first BJ you'll stop saying retarded shit like that forever, for fear that you might never experience another. Now lighten up, go forth, and receive thy hummer.

    5. Re:Whales by Prune · · Score: 1

      Email me and I'll give you my address so you can come meet my girlfriends. muthaga@msn.com I've been a PUA for three years already, and I've mastered Zan, Mystery, and David D seduction methods.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  17. You're correct by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

    Oh, which i should say is just another way of stating your correct calculation!

    I have a degree in Mathematics... one would hope I had a solid grasp of fractions by now. But no....

    --
    Take off every 'sig' !!
    1. Re:You're correct by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      I have a degree in Mathematics...

      In that case, I'd like a Whopper meal without tomatoes. Can I get a coupla packets of ketchup for my fries?

    2. Re:You're correct by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      Funny, I was a chef for eleven years during and after uni...

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
  18. It stopped the other day by Centurix · · Score: 5, Funny

    When I shutdown my PC. Turns out the bearing was on its way out.

    --
    Task Mangler
  19. take it stewie by TheSmokingMan666 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    there's some waves at the bottom of the sea there's some waves at the bottom of the sea oh there's some waves, there's some waves there's some waves at the bottom of the sea

  20. Energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    is it a harnessable energy source?

    I'm guessing it may be to week/dispersed. But would be nice to know if it could be focussed suficiently.

  21. But wait! by camperdave · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...the waves are making the sound.

    Wait a minute. How do we know that it's the waves that are causing the hum, and not the other way around? Perhaps the planet is still ringing from meteor impacts, and the hum is just the resonant frequency. The deep ocean waves may be just a side effect.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:But wait! by radtea · · Score: 1

      How do we know that it's the waves that are causing the hum, and not the other way around? Perhaps the planet is still ringing from meteor impacts, and the hum is just the resonant frequency.

      Damping.

      Note to mods: you misspelled "funny".

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    2. Re:But wait! by MindKata · · Score: 0

      The article doesn't mention the hum is a momentary event, it seems to imply this is a commonly occurring 10 millihertz hum? ... So maybe the wave action is introducing random noise and part of that noise could then be hitting possibly the resonate frequency of some part of the Earth?!

      But could it be the resonate frequency of the whole earth? ... or the resonate frequency of just the Oceans? ... or even the resonate frequency of the rock part of the earth?. (Or even possibly the resonate frequency of the liquid outer core?!)

      It would be fascinating to know what the resonate frequency of the whole earth could be?. (I promise not to use it to build a Dooms Day machine ;)

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
    3. Re:But wait! by rucs_hack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      given the fact that most natural systems exist in some kind of homeostatic relationship with other systems, its likely that the cause is rather complex. I wouldn't have a clue where to start.

      That's what I love about science though, there's yet another thing to explain. I wonder what it will reveal?

    4. Re:But wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My impatience and frustration with science.

    5. Re:But wait! by swrona · · Score: 1

      ...there's yet another thing to explain. I wonder what it will reveal?
      yet another thing to explain?
      --
      -=Steve
    6. Re:But wait! by rucs_hack · · Score: 1, Funny

      your going to be frustrated for a long time then.

      You could try religeon, they have *all* the answers, so long as you don't actually ask any questions....

    7. Re:But wait! by operagost · · Score: 1

      You could try dictionary.com. They have all the spellings, so long as you only want the correct ones.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    8. Re:But wait! by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

      I din't knew whit you moan

    9. Re:But wait! by Thundersnatch · · Score: 1, Insightful

      given the fact that most natural systems exist in some kind of homeostatic relationship with other systems, its likely that the cause is rather complex. I wouldn't have a clue where to start.

      But, you're really quite positive about the whole global warming thing being caused by man, right?

    10. Re:But wait! by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's all cool, I hear Dave'll fix it next tuesday.

    11. Re:But wait! by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Yes, unless you've got a theory that does a better job of explaining all the evidence to the satisfaction of the majority of people who study the problem.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    12. Re:But wait! by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      The earth has an electromagnetic field resonance. Investigate it and other VLF/ELF phenomena further here.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    13. Re:But wait! by SaDan · · Score: 1

      How does satisfying a majority of people make a theory correct?

      At one time, the majority of people were satisfied with the theory the earth was flat.

    14. Re:But wait! by craw · · Score: 1

      The fundamental mode (0S2) for the Earth's resonance is about 54 minutes long. Higher mode free-oscillations have shorter periods. The key thing is that this mode, which can be excited by very large earthquakes (more energy released than a meteor impact), damps out after a few hours to a few days. Also note that the shorter the period of the oscillation, the faster the attenuation rate.

    15. Re:But wait! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Well, assuming the Earth to be a closed system (not a correct assumption), we are digging up materials and burning them. That will heat up the earth and is caused by man. When we recognize that the earth is not a closed system, we are still adding heat that would otherwise not have been there. So, is global warming happening? That seems to be agreed upon. Is man having any effect on global warming? That is a fact (well, unless you think that horses would be digging up materials and burning them if we were not). So he can be quite comfortably sure that man is adding to global warming. However, like all complex systems, no single factor is 100%. Thus, the question is whether man is contributing greatly. However, to address that point, one must recognize that global warming is occurring (pretty much universally accepted) and that man is affecting it (an undisputed fact, as long as the question is worded properly), but combining those two gets a sharp emotional response from a number of people. That prevents any meaningful discussion on the topic, like your apparently rhetorical question that implies that digging up huge amounts of materials and burning them has no effect on the environment.

    16. Re:But wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article mentions 10 milliHertz as the frequency of the waves. This equates to a period of 100 seconds. Perhaps this is a higher mode oscillation, but it would need to be sustained given the damping period you mention.

      The article specifically states that the frequency matches the harmonics of waves off the coast of Venezuala.

    17. Re:But wait! by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Please educate yourself on science before criticizing it. In science you don't ever prove anything absolutely correct. If that's what your looking for there are plenty of religions out there for you to try instead.

      The belief in a flat earth predates the scientific method by at least a millennium so there never was a consensus among scientists that the earth was flat. The belief in a flat earth is in no way applicable to the modern scientific process.

      If you've got a system that works better than the scientific method which has been developed for many centuries and used to bring our civilization to the level of technical sophistication that we now enjoy then I'd love to hear all about it. If not then please take a seat and stop trying to hinder attempts at progress.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    18. Re:But wait! by TempeTerra · · Score: 1

      Nice troll. I was going to wait until I got to the "Kansas schools..." thread before I bit at anything, but what the hell - it's the weekend.

      Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming isn't particularly controversial anywhere except in the "Fair and Balanced" American media and in the statements of politicians who are funded by oil companies. Real scientists argue about precisely how bad it is and what to do about it. Is it so outrageous to think that changing the composition of the atmosphere will change the climate?

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
    19. Re:But wait! by izomiac · · Score: 1

      Hmm... last time I checked science was about data and falsifiable theories constructed around that data, not consensus. The difference isn't immediately obvious since a belief widely held by scientists is usually supported by pretty good evidence. However, scientists are human (well, most of them), so many are reluctant to immediately disregard a belief they've held for several years even if there's proof that it's false. Furthermore, many scientists understand their field really well, and tend to either not understand other fields or not consider them (or both). A climatologist may downplay the effects of astronomical events on climate for instance. (BTW, since you're talking about global warming, climatology isn't really something the scientific method works on, well, unless you start essentially terraforming planets.)

      If you've got a system that works better than the scientific method which has been developed for many centuries and used to bring our civilization to the level of technical sophistication that we now enjoy then I'd love to hear all about it. If not then please take a seat and stop trying to hinder attempts at progress.

      Why does the scientific method's history matter? If there's a better method then it should be used, regardless of its age. In fact, the scientific method isn't terribly effective for engineering or historical analysis (archeology, climatology, etc.). Also, the scientific method, as I understand it, doesn't have a requirement that experiments adhere to the consensus opinion. The consensus opinion is fairly close to a null hypothesis in an experiment, i.e. the thing you're trying to falsify.

    20. Re:But wait! by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      My point is that while it's true that the scientific process is imperfect over the short term their is no better way for a lay person to judge the fitness of a theory than by looking at what the professionals are saying. Modern science especially something like climatology is extremely complicated and almost none of us who aren't professionals have any basis to make good judgments based on our superficial knowledge of the subject.

      I think the history of the scientific method is important because it's a provably effective tool and also because it was relevant to the OP's flat earth assertion. Obviously because we don't have a control Earth to experiment with researchers can't base their conclusions only on the scientific method, but it is still useful for showing CO2's affect on the atmosphere and our affect on the CO2. All the ice core sampling and tree ring counting that is done shows that historical analysis is also being done where appropriate. You speak of a better method of understanding the climate which the professionals are overlooking, what exactly is it?

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    21. Re:But wait! by SaDan · · Score: 1

      Answer the first question, and I'll give you a cookie.

      I've worked with and for many scientists doing climate and atmospheric research.

      Scientific method cannot be applied to the study of our planet's climate, since we cannot replicate conditions to prove or disprove anything at a 1:1 scale. All we have is our planet in realtime, and bad historical data resolution.

      If you can't ever prove anything absolutely correct, you haven't proven anything. You're still dealing with theories, and hopefully more experiments that will lead to a solid answer.

      Why don't you follow your own advice, and please take a seat. Preferrably in a classroom.

    22. Re:But wait! by SaDan · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

      Educate yourself. Link includes a history of the flat earth theory, and how it was disproved using scientific methods from various people throughout the ages.

    23. Re:But wait! by izomiac · · Score: 1
      researchers can't base their conclusions only on the scientific method, but it is still useful

      Yes, climatologists know what they're talking about and are scientists. No, you aren't using the scientific method if you model your opinions based on what researchers personally believe.


      You speak of a better method of understanding the climate which the professionals are overlooking, what exactly is it?

      No, I say that the scientific method isn't terribly well suited for climate research, and that if there's a better method then we should adopt it regardless of its history (long or short). Obviously if I knew a better method then I would be evangelizing it, not implicitly referencing it in Slashdot posts (although I didn't even do that).


      almost none of us who aren't professionals have any basis to make good judgments based on our superficial knowledge of the subject.

      Nobody has any basis to make a judgment on something like climatology. That is to say, no one researcher can say "Mankind's activities are the sole reason that the average temperature is increasing". A layman can know the following:
      • Research tells us that increased CO2 levels correlate with higher average global temperatures
      • Burning fossil fuels dumps a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere

      This would lead a layman to believe that humans are contributing to global warming. It does not entitle a layman to believe that human activity is the only contribution or that all scientists are in agreement about exactly how much influence human activity has had on the warming trend. Therefore, a layman can form a moderately informed opinion. You attacked a couple people for not blindly believing what you hear on the media about the opinions of scientists. I.e. how many climatologists have you personally interacted with, and why should their opinion matter? They may be well informed, but they may not necessarily be unbiased (research and data should be unbiased, opinion usually is, whether that be toward an external influence or the person's own limited experience). Realistically, global warming is probably due to a variety of reasons. Human activity probably played no small part, but, natural or not, changes have happened. These changes affect everybody, not just climatologists. Therefore, it's reasonable for everyone to have an opinion on it. (Or if they choose not to have an opinion then that's fine too.) Science is skeptical by nature. Therefore, one should be skeptical of broad claims. One should listen to reason and solid data, not opinion or speculation. Scientists are not infallible, and should not be treated as such. Heck, the Pope isn't even infallible unless a variety of conditions are met. (One of which being that you're catholic and you care about the Pope.) That's why you shouldn't blindly believe what anyone says. Now, if you know a lot of really well informed people believe a certain way, and you want to model your beliefs after them, that's fine. But don't attack people who don't show the same blind faith that you do. Leave that to the theists. (And no, I'm not intending to liken faith in science to faith in religion, just that the blind acceptance of people's opinions is not scientific and one shouldn't pretend that it is.)
    24. Re:But wait! by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Of course they used scientific methods. I said the belief in flat earth was disproved a thousand years before modern scientific methodology was formalized. No one said scientific methods couldn't ever be used before they were formalized. My point stands, your assertion that there was a time when a flat earth was the consensus among scientists is false.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    25. Re:But wait! by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Nobody has any basis to make a judgment on something like climatology

      Too bad. The risk of doing nothing is too costly. It would be nice if we could sit back and wait till "all the evidence is in", but no such point in time will ever come so we have to at some point decided to act on what we know even if only a small preponderance of the evidence supports our action.

      You are seriously misrepresenting what I said. I don't believe and never implied that scientists are infallible. I don't believe and never did I imply that everything scientists say should be accepted blindly. I don't believe in and never did I imply that I believe in faith. I believe no one believes anything by faith, there are always reasons even if they are poor reasons.

      What I advocate is a meritocratic approach to climate policy. No, scientists are not perfect. Yes, scientists make mistakes. However the people who dedicate their lives to understanding the climate and how it can be manipulated are less likely than anyone else to be wrong about the subject. Everyone can come to their own conclusions, but when deciding policy the opinions of a lawyer in Boston or a Mechanic in Tuscon should not be considered.

      In addition, though the individual scientists are flawed the majority opinion of all the worlds climate researches is far less likely to be wrong than any individual's opinion.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    26. Re:But wait! by SaDan · · Score: 1

      Wow. I'd love to see a citation for your "point". Otherwise, you've not convinced me of anything other than your ability to post on Slashdot.

    27. Re:But wait! by izomiac · · Score: 1
      Ok, by judgment I mean that no number of scientists can make something true. Every scientist in a field believing in something doesn't make it any truer. Only data collected can suggest what the truth actually is. Waiting until "all the evidence is in" is a straw man position that nobody actually holds since the amount of evidence collectible is infinite.

      In an attempt to distill what we actually are disagreeing about, lets look at the original thread that caused me to object to your opinion.

      But, you're really quite positive about the whole global warming thing being caused by man, right? - Thundersnatch
      Yes, unless you've got a theory that does a better job of explaining all the evidence to the satisfaction of the majority of people who study the problem. - You
      How does satisfying a majority of people make a theory correct? - SaDan
      Please educate yourself on science before criticizing it. - You

      Going on what has been said, it would seem that you firmly believe in global warming being caused by man. You challenge Thundersnatch to provide an alternate theory that satisfies a couple of conditions. This implies you don't know of any other opinion that has merit. It also begs the question why must those conditions be met? The first (better job) is acceptable. The second is unscientific and SaDan points this out. You essentially state that he doesn't know what he's talking about, so I felt compelled to chime in. I don't care if you believe in global warming being mostly due to the activities of mankind. That's an acceptable and logical position to hold. What I won't tolerate is the implication that this is the only acceptable position to hold. Just because you choose to follow the scientific consensus doesn't mean everyone else has to. In science it's the data that matters, not consensus. Consensus may correlate with fact, but it doesn't cause something to be fact. Because of that reason, I object to your intolerance of someone holding an alternate opinion, or the implication that someone could be unconvinced. (I.e. they don't believe in global warming due to mankind, but don't believe in any other theories on the matter either.)
    28. Re:But wait! by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      I respect your opinion, I don't really think people aren't entitled to differing opinions. If there was no dissent then progress would never be made because new ideas would never be put forward. I just tend to have little patience with the global warming nay-sayers because it seems like almost all of them are dissenting because it benefits them economically or politically, not because of any factual merits of their position. Maybe I just follow the news to much. I agree there is obviously room, and in fact a need for well backed scientific dissent. Even if it's wrong, we all gain from the criticism. Sadly the politically motivated dissenters benefit no one but themselves.

      That's my position, sorry if I came across a bit ornery.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  22. divide by 2 by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    But the hum is a frequency doubling, the original waves would pass a fixed point at 18 per hour.
    --
    Wave mechanics surf.

  23. hertzs by mapkinase · · Score: 4, Informative

    10 milliHz is a beat every 100 seconds. Must be really tricky to detect. I wonder how far below that frequency the sensitivities of seismometers go.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismometer#Modern_re cording mentiones only down to 1Hz. Need to see original article in Nature from work.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:hertzs by flyrok · · Score: 1

      Most modern seismometers have low frequency corners below 0.01 Hz. This hum signal is not so tricky to detect--it shows up everywhere. The tricky part is figuring out what causes it.

    2. Re:hertzs by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      The tricky part is figuring out what causes it.
      I did not even go to that part since I am very sceptical on that aspect. I have to read the paper though.
      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    3. Re:hertzs by mapkinase · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ok, I skimmed briefly through Webb's article in Nature. Fig.3 shows the comparison between the model and experimental data. Coming from the computational biology field (3D structure prediction, gene modeling) I am somehow not convinced. To judge the matching of the model to the data one has to use a third more trivial approximation whatever it is.

      For example, if you want to predict the quality of your prediction of protein 3D structure, you can assume very simple approach, like all the aminoacid residues on the surface of the protein are predicted less correctly than those inside. Or you can say: everything predicted in loops (those stretches of aminoacid chains that are not in regular local structure - alphahelix or betastrand) is bad, everything else is solid and then compare your quality prediction model threeways: to (a) actual quality and (b) to quality predicted by previously described simplistic models.

      I do not see that here.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  24. Aha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So that's the noise that has been driving me up the wall.

  25. Balrog by tore · · Score: 5, Funny

    I always thought it was the Balrog humming.

    1. Re:Balrog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The boxer from SF2??

    2. Re:Balrog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck no it's Gandolf humming he killed the Balrog.

    3. Re:Balrog by RexJ · · Score: 1

      No, Cthulhu snoring

    4. Re:Balrog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did the Balrog shoot first?

  26. Come one it is the intelligent shaking. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Funny

    These atheistic God-denying scientists attribute the constant hum detected by the seismometers to some random wave action at the ocean floors. But they ignore the fact that it violates the second law of thermodynamics (whatever it is). The real cause for the hum is the intelligent shaking by the Shaker. We demand equal time in all classrooms and seminars and conferences, wherever these surfologists congregate to rebut their theory (not fact) with our scientifically formulated real sceintific fact that intelligent shaking is the fundamental cause for all the hum on earth.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Come one it is the intelligent shaking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There needs to be a new mod option: +1, Sad but True...

    2. Re:Come one it is the intelligent shaking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess those mod points stating that is is off topic are right. I mean, a sarcastic reply to a sarcastic post about a Shaker God is really off topic.

      Here's a clue for the next mod to read this: Disagreeing with an opinion doesn't make it off topic. Instead, your inaccurate use of mod points shows your own inadequate feelings toward your beliefs.

      Must you really suppress the opinion of others just to insure the sanctity of your frail opinion? Censorship is for the weak, and that mod runs warm yellow down his leg every time he reads something he disagrees with.

    3. Re:Come one it is the intelligent shaking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly that moderator didn't read the FAQ:

      "Concentrate more on promoting than on demoting. The real goal here is to find the juicy good stuff and let others read it. Do not promote personal agendas. Do not let your opinions factor in. Try to be impartial about this. Simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it down."

      http://slashdot.org/faq/com-mod.shtml [Subsection, How Moderation Works]

    4. Re:Come one it is the intelligent shaking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well fuck, dude, if you don't like it get a fucking account and meta-moderate. Of course, if you got an account and continued to make stupid comments like that you probably wouldn't have the karma to moderate anything, ever.

      This is slashdot. You have to think before you post.

    5. Re:Come one it is the intelligent shaking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      He probably just read the whole thing, which includes the statement:

      Promote quality, discourage crap.
    6. Re:Come one it is the intelligent shaking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, we are both in agreement that my post was on topic? In your opinion my post was "stupid" but you never mentioned that it was off topic, and that is exactly how the moderator should have viewed it.

      I don't mind if people disagree with me, or even if they cannot find merit in what I type... but burying someone's post and giving invalid reasons for doing so is just not cricket.

    7. Re:Come one it is the intelligent shaking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am all for discouraging crap and constipating the conversation, but don't you think the mod could have used a more accurate descripter? Off top was not the appropriate modifier for my post.

      The Mod System needs a rating system for the mods themselves.

    8. Re:Come one it is the intelligent shaking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, we are both in agreement that my post was on topic?
      You should really learn to build better straw men if you want to be a successful slashdot troll (hint: you need to engage more than just one bored student to be a successful troll). Just because I think what you said is idiotic does not mean that I do not also find it to be off-topic. However, off-topic posts, like the parent to your little tirade, are often tolerated here on slashdot because they are funny. Jokes do not contribute to the conversation almost by definition, but they lighten up the tone of the entire slashdot experience. Thus, the people who developed the mod system show +5 Funny posts for all to enjoy, but this does nothing for the karma of the poster.

      Your response, however, was neither funny nor did it have any bearing on the conversation at hand. It did not even show any pretenses of humor. It was a mere attempt to pull out the same tired, scientifically invalid criticisms of evolution out of that box in the attic where they belong and start a flamewar. If being modded flamebait is what you wanted, you should have either chosen a subject closer to the topic of this thread or posted your tirade in a story about evolution. However, here you are not even flamebait, you are just off-topic.

      Now, as for my response, I was pointing out that a better approach to redressing your grievances would be to meta-mod, but luckily slashdot has an excellent system in place to keep people who are not nerds and who do not have the intellectual standards of nerds out of the conversation. It works pretty well; I doubt anyone other than you or I is ever going to read this.

    9. Re:Come one it is the intelligent shaking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry that you think I straw-manned your post. The topic of my post was was whether or not the parent post was off topic. I assumed that your reply only addressed the merit of that mod'ed post and not the "off-topic" subject because you indeed thought it was on topic.

      There are probably less than 30 people reading this post, but they are reading. Someone is probably actually that bored. Quite possibly as bored as you and I must be to continue this conversation.

      LOL, I do find it funny to be insulted for not meeting your nerd standards. It's obvious that because we disagree on fundamental opinions regarding science that you feel the need to disrespect me. Insults do not win arguments, nor do generalizations of my opinion.

      In essence, you are a Conservative scientist. You are unwilling and/or unable to question the bedrock on which you base your beliefs. You ignore the inconsistencies in the theories you adore. Replace your textbook with my bible, and we're essentially the same person. (which is probably why this conversation is going nowhere)

      Humor exists when there is truth in the joke. I find my post humorous because I find the underlying argument true. You find the OP funny because you agree with the truth it communicates.

      The mod system here is great until you run into group-think, and I am even fine with that. If the majority finds me a wacko then mod me down, but mod me down for the right reasons. I was on topic, and I still am.

      Good day,
      Ymous, Anon

    10. Re:Come one it is the intelligent shaking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does have a system to mod the mods. Its called meta-moderation, or M2 for short. You can seriously fuck somebody's karma that way, but you have to be logged in. Read the FAQ. It will prevent you from making an idiot of yourself.

    11. Re:Come one it is the intelligent shaking. by AdamThor · · Score: 1

      There's a FSM tie-in here somewhere, I know it...

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
    12. Re:Come one it is the intelligent shaking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, I do find it funny to be insulted for not meeting your nerd standards. It's obvious that because we disagree on fundamental opinions regarding science that you feel the need to disrespect me. Insults do not win arguments, nor do generalizations of my opinion.
      Au contraire. Ad hominem attacks win arguments on a regular basis. Just look at the democratic process.

      Although the technique is much maligned in many circles, I think they have their place. Ad hominems are the logical counter to the classic "appeal to authority" argument, which is what an appeal to a religious text is.

      In essence, you are a Conservative scientist. You are unwilling and/or unable to question the bedrock on which you base your beliefs. You ignore the inconsistencies in the theories you adore. Replace your textbook with my bible, and we're essentially the same person. (which is probably why this conversation is going nowhere)
      There is one fundamental difference. If you put a new research paper in my hands that compelling evidence up to a certain standard in my hands, I will change my mind. If I put a Koran in your hands, you will not change your mind. This is because science is not what is written in textbooks, it is what can be observed and repeated and/or used to make accurate predictions.

      Humor exists when there is truth in the joke. I find my post humorous because I find the underlying argument true. You find the OP funny because you agree with the truth it communicates.
      Not quite. You posted that as a response to somebody poking fun at ID and the intellectual laziness that accompanies ID. You were clearly looking for a fight.

      The mod system here is great until you run into group-think, and I am even fine with that.
      It's news for nerds, not news for bible thumpers. Go to cnet if you want to be with people who condemn a scientific process they don't understand.

      If the majority finds me a wacko then mod me down, but mod me down for the right reasons. I was on topic, and I still am.
      If you really believe that this thread is still on topic, you should really review your definition of "on topic". We are now discussing evolution, science vs fundamentalism, and the slashdot mod system. The topic is waves and the earth's "hum". You weren't on topic before, and you certainly aren't now.

      Take care

    13. Re:Come one it is the intelligent shaking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My apologies. Thanks for the information.

      Does it also tell you in the FAQ how to become an elitist and belittle everyone that you come across? It seems that 65% of Slashdot is that way. Its like a case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder gone epidemic, though I think the bravado online is to compensate for what is lacked in real life.

    14. Re:Come one it is the intelligent shaking. by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Pagan! Infidel! Heathen! Let all now know that the hum is truly His Noodly Appendage strumming His Gigantic Electric Guitar.

    15. Re:Come one it is the intelligent shaking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome our new intelligent shaking overlords.

    16. Re:Come one it is the intelligent shaking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have yet to 'appeal to authority' in this argument. I did however parallel my beliefs with yours under the common label of conservative.

      You admit that it would take an entire research paper given to you in order to change your way of thinking. Why not question the theories that exist based on the inconsistent data? Why depend on others to do that work for you?

      AH may win an argument via brute force if the other person has self-identity issues, but it doesn't sway opinion of the topic itself. BTW, I read large portions of the Koran in college, but that's not really important to the discussion at hand.

      There are no real complex certainties in the world, only faith that there are certainties. You have faith that past scientists, and scholars have thoroughly examined the basic principles in which you believe. Just as I have faith that a higher power exists.

      Do you think the OP had any negative intentions when he used sarcasm to bash ID? Humor isn't always knock-knock jokes. He poked fun at some of my beliefs so I poked fun back. My point was to show the duality of that line of thinking, and how his point could easily be mirrored by the other side.

      My philosophy for on topic differs with yours, which is not surprising. This sub-thread was started by a post that was on topic because it incorporated the original topic while branching off onto the subject of ID. I saw the sub-thread he had created, and mirrored his response sarcastically from an ID point of view. I was on topic for his sub-thread and the main thread, and he was on topic for the post he replied to.

      This branching occurs IRL as well as online. Tangents are created and destroyed by the buzz they generate. If human conversation were bottled without the ability to branch, then simple tasks such as; correlation, cross-referencing, and of course humor would not be possible.

      Admittedly, we're on one hell of a tangent right now. In the interest of compromise I must admit this post is far removed from the original topic. I took it down this shadowed path when I posted addressing the moding system, but I stand by what I have said. My original post is on topic.

      I am here because I choose to be here. Though the topics and new stories Slashdot discusses may be a couple of days old, I enjoy the discussions that occur between intelligent individuals here. I disagree with some of what is said here, but I still read it and assimilate the information into my world-view.

      Why are you here? Just to make yourself feel superior to others, or is it as I suspect, many of the same reasons why I am here?

      I'll give you the last word, as I fear that this far down the thread we'll both lose our patience.

  27. Quick! Someone patent/copyright/trademark it! by fmobus · · Score: 4, Funny

    If this humming is omnipresent, it means that every music is "sampling" it without authorization. We then sue RIAA out of existence for unlicensed sampling.
    PROFIT!

  28. Easy to explain by hey! · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nobody's figured out how to ground the dang thing.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Easy to explain by saider · · Score: 1

      How do you ground the ground?

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    2. Re:Easy to explain by psydeshow · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      Or more to the point, where do you think the hum *goes* when you ground your amps?

      Into the ground, of course!

  29. Which sea? by 3seas · · Score: 1

    If I know which one maybe I can tune it to make music and really stump the scientist.
    (re: my user handle)

  30. Global-scale flood tectonic cataclysm ring down. by truckaxle · · Score: 1

    Actually the hum is the planetary ring down of the violent shaking the earth received after the continents rapidly moved to their present locations due to a global-scale flood tectonic cataclysm. BTW I predict that the magnitude of this hum is exponentially decaying just like the speed of light and earth magnetic field.

  31. Throbbing by andrewuwe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    10 millihertz sounds more like a throb than a hum to me, perhaps even a chug.

    1. Re:Throbbing by mysticgoat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's more like "bang the drum softly". Once every ten seconds.

      So are there any biological processes that are using this omnipresent beat for a clock frequency? Do any of the intracellular membranes we are familiar with quiver in resonance with the Earth beat? Would it be possible to predict the shape of such a biological structure?

      I'm guessing that life has found a way to take advantage of this constant beat to organize sequences of activity. If that it so, there would be health consequences for astronauts: the ISS might need to have a thumper installed on the hull. There are probably also health consequences for anyone working in an environment where the Earth beat is drowned by industrial noise.

    2. Re:Throbbing by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      It's more like "bang the drum softly". Once every ten seconds.

      That's 100 seconds, and then, it's not a regular beating, not regular at all, actually, it's pretty innacurate to think of it like drums beating. It's more like a noise, a continuous noise, just like the sound of a volcano while it's erupting, or the sound of a rocket while it's lifting off, only much lower. It's not a perfectly continuous noise either, you can see/hear distinct beats, but I don't think it's incompatible with a narrow band noise.

      Anyways here you can hear for yourself what it sounds like, speeded up a thousand times, and if you speed it up even some more in an audio editor (since here it has some frequencies we hardly can hear) you'll see that it definitely doesn't sound like a regular drum beating but more like a noise, a noise between 0.02 Hz and 0.06 Hz.

      It's a shame that so many people around here like you assumed that it was something like a regular drum beating, and started fantasying about it. That's what scares me about Slashdotters sometimes, we're too certain of our understanding of things.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    3. Re:Throbbing by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the links. I will look at them when I have a moment.

      Apologies to all for my messing up the decimal point when trying to do arithmetic in my head before the coffee was ready. I sometimes know better, sometimes— in my more wakeful states.

      It's a shame that so many people around here like you assumed that it was something like a regular drum beating, and started fantasying about it. That's what scares me about Slashdotters sometimes, we're too certain of our understanding of things.

      Gee, I feel so sorry for those people who find the slashdot fantasies to be a scary experience; theirs must not be a comfortable life. What with mass media advertising being what it is, and all. However I have convinced myself that a very large majority of slashdotters have no trouble entertaining a little fantasy even when mixed in with a bunch of baldfaced facts and absolute truthiness. So while I fully support all the effort that has gone into making slashdot wheelchair accessable, comprehensible to the profoundly colorblind, etc, I do not intend to modify my writing to accommodate the reality challenged.

  32. I have an idea by LaughingCoder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Maybe we could build a clock that used this hum as some sort of synchronization. Then every clock on the planet could be synchronized, since this signal is presumably detectable everywhere.

    OK, I didn't say it was a *good* idea :-)

    --
    The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    1. Re:I have an idea by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      If the sound originates on the seafloor, you presumably need to account for propagation delays. If the sound is generated over a large area, it'll be muddled enough that you won't be able to lock onto a specific phase of the soundwave. Also, TFA doesn't say how regular the sound is. If it's 10 mHz +/- 50%, you've got too much clock drift to be usable.

    2. Re:I have an idea by Lord+Ender · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yes, if you're going to come up with a stupid idea, at least be creative about it! I commend you for that delightfully retarded thought. Next thing you know, people will be building computers out of water and tubes.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    3. Re:I have an idea by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

      If it's 10 mHz +/- 50%, you've got too much clock drift to be usable.
      Ahhh, but that only matters if you want everyone to have the "correct" time. If, on the other hand, you only want to synchronize activities, it doesn't matter if the ticks are somewhat asynchronous. For example, all coordinated parties could agree on a certain tick count to perform some action. Of course the latency/prop delay argument you bring up would need to be handled - but that should be just a matter of calibration.
      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    4. Re:I have an idea by Pastis · · Score: 1

      a clock, like any measuring device, needs 2 things: a scale (your frequency) and an initialization value.

      Even if you can convert your frequency into seconds (assuming that the frequency is constant within a lifetime). How do you initialize your clock ?

    5. Re:I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flamebait? Or funny!?

  33. Re:hertzs (stacking) by Reverse+Gear · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well many seismometers are constantly on and have very long periods of this noise recorded.
    So with enough stacking you can pretty much detect as low frequencies as you want if only the amplitude is strong enough to be detected by the seismometers, so my guess is that the limiting factor is not the 1 Hz, but lies in how small amplitudes these seismometers detect.

    These suggested waves would hold quite an amount of energy so it does make sense that they are able to detect these to me.

  34. Well, obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...you should have become an accountant.

  35. who you gonna call? by Hebbinator · · Score: 1

    Ray: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath-of-God type stuff.
    Venkman: Exactly.
    Ray: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers and seas boiling.
    Egon: Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes-
    Winston: The dead rising from the grave-
    Venkman: Human sacrifice, DOGS and CATS living together.. Mass Hysteria!

  36. Peace At Last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now if only they could make the voices stop as well.

  37. Which one? by JPMaximilian · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Does this fall under news for nerds or stuff that matters? I'm guessing it isn't the latter.

    --
    "I'll see you next time." - LeVar Burton
    1. Re:Which one? by fredrated · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Humans are deeply curious, and the desire to know is independent of the knowledges applicability. Are you a cyborg?

    2. Re:Which one? by JPMaximilian · · Score: 0

      That is such a generalization, how do you speak for humanity?

      --
      "I'll see you next time." - LeVar Burton
  38. is 10 Millihertz B Flat? by scherbi · · Score: 1

    'cause apparently, B Flat is 'universal':
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=7442915

    1. Re:is 10 Millihertz B Flat? by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      B Flat is about 466 Hz so that is 4.66e4 higher, 2e15=3.3e4 and 2e16=6.6e4 so it is probably a bit off pitch for B Flat.

    2. Re:is 10 Millihertz B Flat? by pla · · Score: 1

      is 10 Millihertz B Flat?

      Nope, it actually comes out very slightly flat of E(-11)... 185.1 half-steps below A4.

      Of course, at such low frequencies, even a tiny measurement error can make a huge difference... If we had just 11mHz, that drops the note by almost a full step.



      (Incidentally, for those curious on how to calculate this, just take log2(Hz/440)*12. That will equal the number of half-steps away from (middle) A4, at 440Hz (thus the magic constant given above).

    3. Re:is 10 Millihertz B Flat? by Sazarac · · Score: 1

      Too bad, I was hoping that would explain why alligators are so surly. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=7442915

      --
      This sig is exempt from disclosure under the privacy Act of 1974.
    4. Re:is 10 Millihertz B Flat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That close to the bottom of the deepest oceans would it be a surprise for it to b flat?

  39. Sorry, folks. by qwertphobia · · Score: 1

    That was just the bass on my kickin' car stereo. I turned it down, so it shouldn't be a problem. Those nine-foot quartz drivers are tite!

    But seriously, how much power would it take to put such a vibration into the air, and how far would it travel? I'm just picturing the hair on my head blowing this way and that way with the changes in sound pressue.

    --
    Never ask for directions from a two-headed tourist! -Big Bird
  40. Why does the earth hum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it just doesn't know the lyrics.

  41. You Fail It! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Read her post again, it wasn't a ground loop -- it was the motor. The live lead was erroneously connected to the outside of the windings. She swapped over the connections so the live was on the inside and the neutral was on the outside, thus shielding it.

    1. Re:You Fail It! by solevita · · Score: 1

      Read the article summary again, we're talking about the Earth -- not some fool's cheap stereo. She should buy half decent hifi and stop posting off topic rants, thus shielding us from this crap.

    2. Re:You Fail It! by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      I thought the joke was that someone just needs to swap the cables powering the Earth and the hum goes away.

  42. OK, next question... by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    what's driving the very low frequency waves then??? Atmospheric turbulence??? Which if so, would mean that the indirect cause of the "hum" IS atmospheric turbulence...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    1. Re:OK, next question... by fredrated · · Score: 1

      In the article they say the energy is comming from the coasts of the world, so it is probably from the pounding of waves on the shore, in essence transfering the energy of atmospheric turbulence into the oceans.

    2. Re:OK, next question... by scoot80 · · Score: 1

      Its the whales farting....

  43. OR by missing000 · · Score: 1

    100 cycles per 10000 seconds, what about that?

  44. IT'S BEES by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    ALL THE WAY DOWN

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  45. Ohhhh yes :) by kahei · · Score: 4, Funny


    You SO win the prize for 'AC reply that is most obviously by the original poster, ever' :) I especially love the way you just telepathically know that the original poster was a 'she'.

    A winner is you!

    --
    Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    1. Re:Ohhhh yes :) by aeoneal · · Score: 1

      Re: telepathic "she"

      Ok, you're probably right - but you should be aware that a significant percentage of people now randomly use either "he" or "she" as a generic pronoun for an unknown person, or alternate the two in a document that calls for multiple instances of such usage. We do it in order to step away from the sexist "he" as a default, and to avoid the awkward "he/she" (which frankly doesn't flow very well.)

    2. Re:Ohhhh yes :) by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      "...the sexist "he"..."

      Charges should be brought immediately.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    3. Re:Ohhhh yes :) by aeoneal · · Score: 1

      I don't understand - charges against whom, for what?

    4. Re:Ohhhh yes :) by ozeki · · Score: 1
    5. Re:Ohhhh yes :) by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      At the peril of ruining any small amount of humor in my post I will now explain my (sarcastic) joke.

      Sexism is an intentional prejudicial or discriminatory practice or M.O. That a pronoun could posess this intention is ludicrous and yet one way to parse your sentence is that the pronoun itself is the sexist entity.

      Therefore the pronoun "he" would be the subject of the charges. What charges? For sexism naturally. This in itsef is an exaggeration of the punishment for sexism (unless it is in the workplace) and exaggeration, as we all know, is a form of humor.

      Also, interestingly enough, there are people who have already "prosecuted" the pronoun "he" by expurgating it from classical texts and re-releasing them in "gender-neutral" fashion.

      In addition, the idea that the pronoun "he" is sexist in proper English usage is also similarly ludicrous as I am sure that people who use correct English are not filled with nasty misogynistic thoughts every time they refer to something as "he".

      So, for me, that part of your comment was like an ironic double-entendre pun all in itself.

      I will quietly sink back into my own psychotic thougths now.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    6. Re:Ohhhh yes :) by Your+Pal+Dave · · Score: 2, Funny

      Re: telepathic "she"

      Ok, you're probably right - but you should be aware that a significant percentage of people now randomly use either "he" or "she" as a generic pronoun for an unknown person, or alternate the two in a document that calls for multiple instances of such usage. We do it in order to step away from the sexist "he" as a default, and to avoid the awkward "he/she" (which frankly doesn't flow very well.) This still discriminates against genderless objects.

      One should say "S/h/it" instead.

      Won't somebody think of the machines?
    7. Re:Ohhhh yes :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hehehe!

      You will live a long and happy life, and will always find your favorite kind of biscuit in a selection, even if the biscuit box has been passed round and everyone else has already taken one.
      (Except on one occasion in fifteen years time, where you have to have a digestive biscuit even though you would have preffered one of the chocolate covered ones.)

    8. Re:Ohhhh yes :) by aeoneal · · Score: 1

      Ok, that's funny, taking the "he" to be the subject of prosecution :-) Sexism does not necessarily require intent, however. It also means "attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles," (see dictionary.com), which can be followed without any particular intent, just thoughtless ignorance. That's all I was warning against. I agree that the vast majority of people who thoughtlessly use "he" are probably not misogynists. That said, the poster assumed that anyone using "she" could not be referring to an unknown person. That's a little different, and that's why I responded. I don't think there was any malice involved, I just thought they'd appreciate the knowledge.

      As a female on /. I'm frequently dismayed by the overt sexism in many posts, particularly when gender is an issue (see this recent post for examples), so I try to bring a little awareness to the game. That's all I wanted to do here.

      Personally, I'm opposed to rewriting past literature to suit modern mores. You can't and shouldn't change the past. I do think present literature (perhaps I should use that term lightly here ;-) should be aware of them, however.

      Thanks for the explanation!

    9. Re:Ohhhh yes :) by aeoneal · · Score: 1

      Nope, sorry. I've been fighting the good fight on behalf of evolution cause since 1981. Kansas scares the hell out of me ;-)

    10. Re:Ohhhh yes :) by aeoneal · · Score: 1

      Ha! Good one - particularly when I think of how it might sound if used in older texts. For example, "He for God, she for God in him," would be very interesting as "S/h/it for God, s/h/it for God in s/h/it...."

      'Scuse me, I have to go do penance now ;-)

    11. Re:Ohhhh yes :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's always h'orsh'it. ;) I first saw mention of that in http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_245b.html

    12. Re:Ohhhh yes :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      from merriam websters:

      Main Entry: 1he
      Pronunciation: 'hE, E
      Function: pronoun
      Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hE; akin to Old English hEo she, hit it, Old High German hE he, Latin cis, citra on this side, Greek ekeinos that person
      1 : that male one who is neither speaker nor hearer -- compare HIM, HIS, IT, SHE, THEY
      2 -- used in a generic sense or when the sex of the person is unspecified


      It is not thoughtless nor incorrect to use he as a genderless pronoun. it is, in fact, proper and correct english.
      the modern feminist inferiority complex does not make a word "sexist".
    13. Re:Ohhhh yes :) by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      I still prefer "they" / "them" / "their" &c. for an introduced person of unspecified gender. It already exists in the English language, and is correct in gender (equally valid for common and neuter!) and case (well, assuming .....) even if it's wrong in number. It's already quite acceptable for people to refer to themselves as "we" even when there's only one of them, and I for one would certainly rather be mistaken for two people than one person of the opposite sex.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  46. I guess I was just misinformed. by Harlow_B_Ashur · · Score: 1

    I thought Zappa had explained this one years ago.

    1. Re:I guess I was just misinformed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the Zappa reference is a song titled "Dynamo Hum."

      Enjoy.

  47. Constant Hum Explained by MythMoth · · Score: 1

    To paraphrase DNA, "Maybe it just feels good about being a planet?"

    --
    --- These are not words: wierd, genious, rediculous
  48. Well this proves it... by mtec · · Score: 5, Funny

    We're living inside an inter-galactic boy band.

    Venus is the hot one and will turn out to be gay (natch, I mean Venus?)
    Earth is the um, down-to-earth one - full of life.
    Mars - the cold and distant one - always at war with the other members
    Jupiter - slightly overweight - jolly
    Saturn - Gaudy over-compensator wears lots of jewelry and rings - looks up to Jupiter

    Hot headed Mercury - left in a huff to form his own band - his manager is the real star though.
    Uranus was an asshole and left before fame came.
    Neptune - always blue, committed suicide after what happened to Pluto...
    Pluto? Well, Pluto was thrown out when it was discovered he never could sing.

    --
    Cake or Death? Cake Please!
    1. Re:Well this proves it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Pluto can dance elipses around the others

    2. Re:Well this proves it... by mike2R · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh fuck. I swear I thought Venus was a girl..

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
  49. All those cartoons paid off! ! by Iridium_Hack · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Spongebob Squarepants cartoon was accurate all the time when it showed that there ARE beaches on the bottom of the ocean!!! We now know for sure that they have waves and everything. Who need Atlantis? If we could only find Bikini Bottom.

  50. Nonsense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It hums because it doesn't know the words.

  51. Re:hertzs (stacking) by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    May be it could be related to the noise of higher frequencies. I do not see a problem detecting amplitudes in the absence of that noise.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  52. Everyone knows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it is the Devil mowing his grass

  53. Not. by DJCacophony · · Score: 1

    He got third post, not first post.

    --
    Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
  54. Wrong notation by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    That should have been 2^15 and 2^16.

  55. Not quite right by unixfan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All objects have a mean frequency which in this example is causing the frequency that they are observing in the water. The frequency in the water comes from the planet's own resonance, or a harmony thereof.

    Tesla noticed this and build a little tool which hit on the harmonic frequency and kept accelerating the oscillation with a device he built until there were "earthquakes" observed all around, and he had to cut short a trip to run home and turn it off. Indeed in manufacturing speakers you try to get this frequency down below audioble range as you don't want the speaker to resonate and alter the sound it's supposed to generate.

    It's a very common mistake made by many when they observe a symptom (not realizing there is a real why behind it.)

    1. Re:Not quite right by linvir · · Score: 1

      Parent post is Tesla. He's back, promoting his crackpot bullshit from beyond the grave.

      Mythbusters said it, I believe it, that settles it.

    2. Re:Not quite right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His crackpot bullshit such as alternating current, the AC motor, tachometers, florescent lighting, to some extent the radio, and don't forget the tesla coil!

    3. Re:Not quite right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If so, the water waves would dissipate the energy and the hum would pretty well disappear.
      If the earth shakes back and forth all by itself once every 100 seconds, it would cause noticeable jolting, whereas some water sloshing will just cause a constant hum.

      There are many sources of energy to move water: wind, sun, tides.

    4. Re:Not quite right by khallow · · Score: 1

      Tesla noticed this and build a little tool which hit on the harmonic frequency and kept accelerating the oscillation with a device he built until there were "earthquakes" observed all around, and he had to cut short a trip to run home and turn it off. Indeed in manufacturing speakers you try to get this frequency down below audioble range as you don't want the speaker to resonate and alter the sound it's supposed to generate.

      Even if this really happened, there are always a lot of earthquakes happening. My take is that there's so much energy being pumped into the Earth itself from tidal forces, oceans, atmosphere, even random human activity that there's no way a man-made tool of the technology level that Tesla was at, could be relevant. More likely, such a thing is observer bias. You look for earthquakes and then you see lots of them.
    5. Re:Not quite right by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

      As I've read most of the Tesla biographies (and the original one, "Prodigal Genius" several times), perhaps my memory of the story is a little better than the original Tesla comment:

      Tesla did a lot of expermentation with resonance. He built a pneumatic tapping device that he was using to test the reaction of physical objects to energy applied to the objects at various frequencies. He used the device in a basement laboratory (in NYC I think). One day he was doing quite a bit of experimenting with the device connected to a steel beam that was sunk into the floor of his lab. As the story goes, he was surprised by the local police who burst into his lab just as he was destroying the device with a sledgehammer. Apparently, what had happened is the tapping had caused some resonant effects in a neighboring building, and ultimately a report to the police and likely a mention of Tesla's nearby laboratory. By the time they had arrived, the building Tesla was in had begun to exhibit resonant effects, and since the device was bolted to the steel beam, and Tesla became concerned that he wouldn't be able to shut it off fast enough (apparently, the air valve he had was far enough upstream that shutting it off wouldn't stop the device immediately) so he smashed the device in order to stop it from damaging the building he was in. He was surprised to find that the police was there to investigate a disturbance he had created unawares, in a neighboring building.

      Tesla several years back was finally credited for inventing radio before Marconi. Tesla built the first radio-controlled device (a floating container). He also invented the first neon sign (the word "Light"), and did considerable experimentation with X-Rays (apparently, his assistant suffered some poisoning in the process).

      There's also an anecdote about resonance and Tesla's friendship with Mark Twain. Twain was visiting Tesla in his lab one day and asked about a vibrating platform that Tesla had. Tesla explained that it was very relaxing to stand on it for awhile, and that he should try it, but for a limited time, that Tesla would tell him when he needed to get off. Twain tried it out, but didn't respond to Tesla's suggestion to stop quite fast enough-- and when he finally did get off immediately needed to be directed to the bathroom-- as it had produced a laxative effect...

      It's not surprising that Tesla is latched onto by woo-woo crackpots, as he really was a phenomenal character. In fact, there's a whole series of channeled volumes by the name of "Tesla Speaks" where he apparently acts as a spirit guide to scientists from beyond-the-grave such as Einstein, etc.. Even the recent fiction film, "The Prestige" capitalizes on embelishing Tesla mythology by suggesting he was able to produce a matter duplication device that is then used by a stage magician in a competition with a rival. Entertaining hogwash, but that doesn't detract from the fact that Tesla was a phenomenal mind. Essentially, we're still using the AC generation and transmission technologies pretty much as he designed them to power our cities. Unfortunately, Tesla's head for business was pretty nonexistant, and later in life he made considerable claims of amazing concepts that it is doubtful were grounded in much reality.

      There are reports however, of third parties who had seen Tesla demonstrate his "power without wires" experiments, which was represented as essentially, exciting the magnetosphere of the earth into oscillation with a huge Tesla coil and then tapping the energy anywhere via a tuned coil. Tesla believed that a tap could have been placed anywhere on the surface of the earth and powered the strings of lights he used in demonstration. In reality, his demonstrations were performed in sufficient radio range and with a sufficiently powered transmitting coil that more likely what was happening was he was pumping out sufficient radio energy that he was able to tap the energy off at an impressive distance from the source to power his lights (which were probably not low-resistance filament bulbs).

    6. Re:Not quite right by unixfan · · Score: 1

      You'd find it an interesting read to see what Tesla did. It was not Tesla who was looking for an earthquake, but people for miles around being alarmed and not understanding what was going on, but being convinced there was an earthquake. (No, it was not an earthquake but it was felt like one to people miles around.)

      Look at singing as a very simple example. You bring together harmonies, vibrations, like a high note breaking glass by hitting the resonence frequency of the glass, causing it to vibrate beyond it normal oscillation and tolerance.

      As far as the frequence of Earth, I think it's a very very low frequency. Probably not at all bothered by the water sloshing around as much as being hurled through space at thousands of miles per second.

      The amount of mass of the planet vs the water on it are not at all in the same league.

      Since the planet also has a resonance frequency, all Tesla would have to do is to find an harmony and start harmonizing. You can build up the oscillation of that frequency the same way you'd tap water in a tub at the right moment building up a bigger and bigger oscillation of waves. You don't change the amount of force you use but by hitting it at the right time, it will build larger and larger waves.

      All he did is test his theory by building a device that harmonized with the planet. (How he figured out that harmony we don't know.) Gently tapping it at the right frequency made it vibrate more and more until people thought there was earthquakes for miles around his house.
      There has not been anyone like Tesla who has done much public work on what he worked on. Few have really understood what he understood. For example, he had a room lit up with lamps that did not have any electical wires. He had wireless remote radio control technology long before anyone knew what it was.

      Some of the things he started is in use by NASA to this very day, the military and all over the world. For example. Tesla realized what Edison did not (Edison actually had very little understanding of what he was doing, and achieved his success through very arduous non scientific lab work, and luck) which was that direct current cannot flow for very far. Tesla is the one who brought out alternating current that the whole world is pretty much using.

      One of the basics on flowing is that it has to be allowed to flow two ways. Otherwise it builds up a ridge and then disburses. Which is exactly what happens with DC pushed to travel too far.

      Anyway I sincerely suggest that anyone with half an interest in how things work get a book from the library or online and read up on Tesla and his many accomplishments. You will be amazed over how able he was with physics and totally useless in managing money and his life.

      Westinghouse ended up owing him so much money they would have to declare bankruptcy if he asked for his money. They sent a guy over to talk with Tesla, who just forgave them the whole debt.
      It started out with them owing him pennies for his AC technology. Over a few years it grew so large they could not pay him back.

      It's like having shares in General Motors or Microsoft and them having to declare bankruptcy due to being unable to pay you what they owe you.

  56. this is what I found by mapkinase · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Article reporting the milliHz hum in 1998
    IDA (International Deployment of Accelerometers) used to detect the hum.
    Article in Nature (1979) assesses if IDA can be used to detect very low frequency seismic data. Looking at the figure 1 of amplitude(?) ("MD counts" at Rarotonga station not shown on the current IDA map) I can see the aftershocks in 2 hour intervals after the Indonesia earthquake, but the subj frequencies could be detected only by obtaining the spectrum (Fig.2) at mHz range which frankly looks like white noise - irregular beats.

    Most interesting figure is Fig.3 which shows the 0.43-0.52mHz of the _processed_ spectrum measured at six different stations around the world at Hour 25 and on. The Alaska station (CMO) has much clearer spectrum compared to the closest (?) RAR station.

    All of it must have meant something for a seismologist which I am not.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  57. possible energy source? by jhfry · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If our whole planet were vibrating at a constant frequency... it seems to be that there is a lot of energy in that hum... any way to harness this?

    --
    Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
    1. Re:possible energy source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Record it and save on having to pay a bassist.

  58. Underwater waves? by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

    Is this like in Spongebob where they lay at a beach and swim in a "lake" even though they are underwater to start with?

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
  59. I for one ... by nqz · · Score: 1

    would like to welcome our new underwater seismic overlords.

    I bow down to the hum.

  60. It's music time. Everybody gather 'round... by Kakurenbo+Shogun · · Score: 1

    "There's a hum in the bottom of the sea.
    There's a hum in the bottom of the sea.
    There's a hum, there's a hum.
    There's a hum in the bottom of the sea.

    "There's a wave on the hum in the bottom of the sea..."

    --
    Convert RSS to HTML - integrate webfeeds into your website
  61. 10 milliherz ... by compandsci · · Score: 0

    ... that's just 2 milliHerz above the Brown Noise. Thank the lord for that.

  62. Obligitory Friends by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 1

    Rachel: It's coming from Joey

    Phoebe: Oh my God turn him off!

  63. Sorry... by ms1234 · · Score: 1

    ..I'll stop now.

  64. Earth humming... by coastin · · Score: 1

    I guess earth doesn't know the words to the song then.

    --
    I lost my sig...
  65. Yeah, but what causes the waves? by pahoran · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Hmm?

    --
    I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
  66. Musical Note by proc_tarry · · Score: 1

    FYI, this frequency is an E note 15 octaves below middle C (C5). Well below the perceptible frequency of the human ear (10Hz+).

    1. Re:Musical Note by cynvision · · Score: 1

      an E note 15 octaves below middle C (C5). Do animals like dogs and cats pick up sounds that low? It could lead to explaining why they freak out before earthquakes if the hum is disturbed by the building stresses of the impending earthquake. Like, they got to be grooving to that earth vibe and *squak!* Rocks grinding sure could be disturbing to their senses.
      --
      "I got it all together but I forgot where I put it."
  67. Let me guess: is it humming a B flat? by maelgon · · Score: 1

    Much like the note that black holes hum... 50-some octaves below middle C?

  68. Journal Article (from Nature) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Letter

    Nature 445, 754-756 (15 February 2007) | doi:10.1038/nature05536; Received 2 November 2006; Accepted 12 December 2006
    The Earth's 'hum' is driven by ocean waves over the continental shelves

    Spahr C. Webb1

    1. Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York 10964, USA

    Correspondence to: Spahr C. Webb1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to the author (Email: scw@ldeo.columbia.edu).
    Top of page
    Abstract

    Observations show that the seismic normal modes of the Earth at frequencies near 10 mHz are excited at a nearly constant level in the absence of large earthquakes1. This background level of excitation has been called the 'hum' of the Earth2, and is equivalent to the maximum excitation from a magnitude 5.75 earthquake3. Its origin is debated, with most studies attributing the forcing to atmospheric turbulence, analogous to the forcing of solar oscillations by solar turbulence2, 4, 5, 6, 7. Some reports also predicted that turbulence might excite the planetary modes of Mars to detectable levels4. Recent observations on Earth, however, suggest that the predominant excitation source lies under the oceans8, 9, 10. Here I show that turbulence is a very weak source, and instead it is interacting ocean waves over the shallow continental shelves that drive the hum of the Earth. Ocean waves couple into seismic waves through the quadratic nonlinearity of the surface boundary condition, which couples pairs of slowly propagating ocean waves of similar frequency to a high phase velocity component at approximately double the frequency. This is the process by which ocean waves generate the well known 'microseism peak' that dominates the seismic spectrum near 140 mHz (refs 11, 12), but at hum frequencies, the mechanism differs significantly in frequency and depth dependence. A calculation of the coupling between ocean waves and seismic modes reproduces the seismic spectrum observed. Measurements of the temporal correlation between ocean wave data and seismic data9, 10 have confirmed that ocean waves, rather than atmospheric turbulence, are driving the modes of the Earth.

    Observations of the normal mode spectrum of the Earth made in the absence of large earthquakes show a roughly constant level, except for a small biannual cycle with energy peaking in January and July, which is consistent with the most energetic storm seasons (and hence largest ocean waves) in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, respectively3, 6. The modes appear as a series of lines between 1 and 10 mHz in spectra from quiet seismometer sites during days without large earthquakes (Fig. 1a). Above 10 mHz, distinct lines are not resolved and the Earth's hum is better described as propagating Rayleigh waves5. The many small earthquakes that occur each day provide insufficient seismic moment to explain quiet day spectra1, 6.
    Figure 1: Seismic waves are driven by ocean waves at half their frequency.
    Figure 1 : Seismic waves are driven by ocean waves at half their frequency. Unfortunately we are unable to provide accessible alternative text for this. If you require assistance to access this image, or to obtain a text description, please contact npg@nature.com

    a, Vertical acceleration spectrum from a quiet site (BFO, Black Forest Observatory), redrawn from data supplied by R. Widmer-Schnidrig (available at www-gpi.physik.uni-karlsruhe.de). Normal mode spectral peaks (Earth's hum) lie between 1 and 10 mHz, and are shown magnified in the inset. The DF microseism peak is driven by ocean waves near 70 mHz, the hum by lower frequency ocean waves. The 'SF' peak is probably driven by waves interacting with bathymetry11. b, Ocean wave height spectrum from the shelf off Florida25. Wind wave spectral peaks vary, but lie above 0.04 Hz. The model infragravity ocean wave spectrum used in the forcing calculations is also shown.
    High resolution image and legend (63K)

    It has long been known that ocean waves drive the large 'microseism' peak

  69. Probably just a ground loop by elrous0 · · Score: 1
    All we need to do is put a filter on the line and we'll be good to go.

    -Eric

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  70. Same thing as saying "global warming explained" by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    Explanation is another word for theory and theirs is yet another.

  71. Wait- it's not... by WheelDweller · · Score: 1

    ...the Earth's PSU fan?

    I'm so dissillusioned. :)

    --
    --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
  72. Humming? by cmeans · · Score: 1

    Guess that means the Earth can't sing.

  73. Need to test this theory by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    They should test it by removing the the world's oceans and seeing if the sound goes away.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    1. Re:Need to test this theory by rcamans · · Score: 1

      they are working on removing the oceans, just give them a little more time.
      nuclear war.
      any day now

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
  74. Obligatory Goonies quote... by Keebler71 · · Score: 1
    Andy: I can't tell... if it's an "A sharp" or if it's a "B flat"!

    Mikey: Heh, if you hit the wrong note, we'll all "B flat!"

    --
    "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
  75. so The Voices are actually lobsters? by swschrad · · Score: 1

    fascinating...

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:so The Voices are actually lobsters? by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      No, it's Crab People!

  76. Caterpillar Drive by srussia · · Score: 1

    Sonarman 2nd Class Ronald Jones: You see, sir, the SAPS software was originally written to look for seismic events. I think when it gets confused, it kind of runs home to Mama.

    Commander Bart Mancuso: I'm not following you, Jonesy.

    Sonarman 2nd Class Ronald Jones:Sir, I'm sorry. Listen to it at 100 times speed. Now, that's got to be manmade, Captain.

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
    1. Re:Caterpillar Drive by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      "Have I got this straight, Jonesy? A $40 million computer tells you you're chasing an earthquake, but you don't believe it, and you come up with this on your own?"
      "Yes Sir."

  77. Re:Everybody hertzs by AGMW · · Score: 1
    ... a beat every 100 seconds.

    Oh great, so this is the damn drum solo, and next up is some freak on bass for a hundred thousand years!

    --
    Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
    handmadehands.co.uk
  78. They're *giant* bees! by alienmole · · Score: 1

    You ignorant clod, any child knows that the bees at the center of the Earth are giant bees, and their wings beat at exactly 10 millihertz.

    1. Re:They're *giant* bees! by Prune · · Score: 1

      I also realized that if some bees flap the wings at X Hz and some at X.01 Hz, the beat frequency would end up being the ten millihertz. Probably easier to breed bees like than than gigantic ones.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  79. Sorry by vbjay · · Score: 1, Funny

    Bad gas. Those beans are AWFUL.

  80. Let's hear it! by dazedNconfuzed · · Score: 1

    Someone have a link to an audio file of this sound? (Sped up to a human-audible rate, of course.)

    --
    Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
  81. Top 10 Theories on Source of Earth's Hum by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 1

    10. Underground cave/rave scene with Neo and Morpheus at Zion was based on real life and we're hearing everyone stomping/drumming.

    9. The Earth is secretly a member of a barbershop quartet.

    8. The earth's crust is filled with "space worm" creatures like the one that almost swallowed the Millenium Falcon.

    7. It's been over 3,000,000,000,000 years since the earth was brought in for an alignment.

    6. It turns out that it's not the Earth but the Sun that is humming. No one has replaced its "old fashioned" magnetic ballast with an electronic one.

    5. The Earth is actually ET's alarm clock and it's going off, but we can't seem to locate the Snooze Bar (although some people believe that it's West Virginia).

    4. There is no hum, a bunch of scientists got together and took bets as to whether or not they could get us all discussing their imaginary hum idea.

    3. The Earth gets crappy reception because the moon keeps interrupting our "line of sight" required by DirectTV.

    2. No one told us, but apparently they've put a HUGE intergalactic superhighway right through out backyard and we're hearing the freight cars roaring by.

    1. Mother Earth is a little lonely lately and is experimenting with her vibrating "lonely person device".

  82. Telsa was interesting that way. by frogstar_robot · · Score: 1

    Tesla was basically a constant flood of ideas. His genius is that at least half of them were good ideas. His problem was that the other half were crap and even he couldn't tell the difference. That isn't really such a bad problem; his good ideas were so good that I overlook the crackpottery and will cheerfully praise him to the stars for his many valid contributions. What is a problem is that modern day crackpots seem to have appointed him their patron saint.

  83. Jamming on Planet TrebleClef by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    The hum ranges from 0.0037Hz to 0.0044Hz. Using the conventional MIDI frequency/pitch conversion formula p = 69 + (12 * log2(f/440)), the hum's pitch runs across almost exactly 3 semitones, a minor third, from just sharp of "B flat" to just sharp of "C sharp", 17 octaves above Middle C.

    Four semitones is the range covered by a guitarist's fingers on a fretboard. The minor third is the most popular guitarist's composition interval.

    Meanwhile, the Perseus Black Hole hums along a B flat. A bassline 57 octaves below Middle C, 74 octaves below the Earth's treble melody.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Jamming on Planet TrebleClef by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      OK, a little editing and rethinking shows that 0.0037Hz is 68 cents above A# and 0.0044Hz is 68 cents above C#. And it's all 17 octaves below Middle C. Which is therefore 40 octaves above the Perseus Black Hole's bassline.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  84. Geological timescale. by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    10 millihertz sounds more like a throb than a hum to me, perhaps even a chug.

    Yes, but on a geological timescale, it's a hideous high-pitched whine.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  85. Does it explain all the mysterious hums? by kryzx · · Score: 1

    Maybe this will explain some of the many mysterious hum phenomena.

    --
    "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
  86. Treebeard says . . . by Dragged+Down+by+the · · Score: 1

    It's the Ents!

  87. Ummmm ok.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am at a loss as to why this matters. Does it affect anything?

  88. On Slashdot... by SaDan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    On Slashdot, Red October hunts you!

  89. Here's how you can feel the hum by dstone · · Score: 1

    Someone have a link to an audio file of this sound? (Sped up to a human-audible rate, of course.)

    I do you one better. A tactile reproduction of the sound (sped up to a sensible rate)...

    You'll need a fork and access to a power socket... In North America and Japan, this will allow you to feel the hum with a 6,000x speedup. In the UK, I think the speedup factor will be approximately 5,000x.

    Enjoy!

  90. Shlock by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  91. triangulation doesnt work for hum by peter303 · · Score: 3, Informative

    A key breakthough was figuring out how to locate continuous signals. For normal earthquakes you have a sharp beginning. Using four or more seismographs you can invert for x,y,z and t0 (called triangulation).

    For continuous signals you can find source by cross-corelating long pieces of signal from multiple locations. I first saw this in ambient noise submarine location, but the seismologists have now adopted it for analyzing some kinds of difficult signals like hum.

  92. Damn Zion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Me thinks it's all the rave dancing going on in Zion. Tell the damn Wachowski brothers to turn down the music!

  93. Diabolus in musica by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

    Holy shit!

    E to Bb! That's a TRITONE! THE SONG OF THE DEVIL!

    Auuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!

    THEY'RE HEARING HELL!

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  94. Don't ignore the scientific explanation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    900 Hydrogen Bombs exploding at the same time 90 million years ago would obviously have devastating effects. E=mc^2, and PV=nkT/N so if 3000 x 10^10 J of energy were released, 5*60a = a3.66*10^23 *kt/2.718128 and would therefore explain the hum - residual energy from the blasts. It would of course decrease over time, proportionally, giving a e^x equation, which if you do the math, comes out to approximately 10 millihertz. My math is indisputable. May Jesus praise L Ron, and Almighty Science.

  95. Oooohh by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony
    I'd like to buy the world a Coke and keep it company.

    --
    What?
  96. In Soviet Russia by had3z · · Score: 1

    you hum the.... umm... earth

    never mind :)

  97. It is not HUM it is AUM by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    What nonsense, attributing the hum detected by the seismometers to the waves on the ocean floor. Every Hindu knows it is not a hum it is AUM. Aum is the primordial sound of the creation of the universe. It permeates everything. It is the pulse of every living being. All the ancient yogis knew that. That is why Hindu chanting includes aum so many times. Read all about it: http://www.yogalesson.com/basic_info/quantum.html . Scientists are just discovering what these yogis knew so long ago.

    aum shanti... , aum shanti... , aum shantihi...

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  98. Schumann Resonance by djtachyon · · Score: 1
    I wonder if in any way, this is related to the "set of spectrum peaks in the extremely low frequency (ELF) portion of the Earth's electromagnetic field spectrum."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumann_resonance

    --
    "What's the use of a good quotation if you can't change it?" - Doctor Who
  99. Redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do people with mod points ever scroll down? I believe this is the third time this has been posted.

  100. On mars the atmosphere shakes once every year by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    on mars the viking landers made a suprising discovery. Once every year the temperature and pressure conditions cause the entire atmosphere to shake globally. The seasonal cylce is not symmetric so it only happens once a year and it happens very close to the same day every year. This might seem weird but the martian atmosphere is about 100th as dense as ours so the sound waves can get pretty huge. I happen to known this because I helped discover it (using fortran 4!)

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:On mars the atmosphere shakes once every year by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      reference and here and here's a picture of the spare lander that was never launched the boom on it is the meteorology sensor

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    2. Re:On mars the atmosphere shakes once every year by goombah99 · · Score: 1
      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  101. It's the earths rotating iron core! by MrJerryNormandinSir · · Score: 1

    I have my own theory. The earth has a molten iron core that rotates at a faster speed than the earth right?
    I bet it's from that, not the friggen ocean. maybe the oscillations from the molten core resonate through the
    ocean, but I'm willing to bet it's from the earth's molten core.

  102. or possibly they have it backwards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we know wind causes waves, and heating and cooling in the ocean cause currents, but even though waves can cause some noise, if you can hear this hum at the same level of audibility in the center on north america or russia, if that's the case, wouldnt that suggest that maybe it's something else?

    hrmm I dunno, maybe like the plates themselves moving? the earth's inner works moving, or possibly the gravitational stresses brought on by the sun and the moon? (kinda like a creaking ship)

    My point is, there are other factors here that could explain it too, though maybe they're at even lower frequencies.

    however, if they can measure it at different sites and the "volume" of the hum decreases slightly as you get away from the ocean, then they're right.

  103. We should really upgrade the Earth... by Octopus · · Score: 1

    ...to 20 hz, considering our recent advances in water logic gates.

    http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/07/02/16/046 253.shtml

  104. Weak Science by Jaborandy · · Score: 1
    From TFA:

    Webb has applied old work on ocean waves to predict what sort of background noise would be made by waves moving over the shallow ocean floor. He found his prediction closely matched the spectrum of the Earth's hum.

    Let's all say this together: "It's not a prediction if the measurement has already been done."

    Working on your model until it aligns with obsrvations is how we got into the mess we're in with astrophysics (you know, the crappy Big Bang model constantly being changed to correlate with new observations). Why don't you try to get an actual prediction from your model, and then check with the real world? Maybe then you'd have something to talk about.

    Ok, so having a model to explain this is good progress, because no good model existed before. Now go ahead and support the new model with evidence. What can it predict that hasn't been measured yet?

    --Jaborandy

  105. Re:Damn (the tin foil) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can put tinfoil under your toes if you think it would help but they are talking about a seismographic hum... kinetic vibration, like sound. Maybe you should reconsider and put sound-absorbing foam insulation under them piggies.

    There is, however, another "hum" of the earth. An electromagnetic vibration that, amazingly enough, is very close to the frequency of a brain in meditation. Somehwere in th 7Hz range, if I recall. I don't feel like googling, that exercise is left to the reader. Maybe (in the days before massive man-made electromagnetic radiation), there was some merit for the holy people to have a tendancy to suggest we go barefoot, avoiding the electrically insulating tendency of footware. It has been found that the major acupuncture points correspond to variations in electrical impedance on the skin. Isn't that amazing? Well if you think about it, when you turn off an older T.V., you can "feel" the static that remains on the picture tube. I was fascinated by this as a kid. Now suppose in ancient times, sesnsitive people could "feel" the electric fields around our bodies... before the days of electronics and worldwide radio-wave (electromagnetic) transmissions swathed the globe. Could be.....

    Things that make you go Hummmmmm.... ;)

    Namaste

  106. It's not the waves... by E++99 · · Score: 1

    I'm just putting finishing touches on a computer simulation that clearly shows that the hum is caused by gasses produced by humans. Moreover, my simulation shows the hum literally ripping the planet in half in 50 years. I'd like to know where these other alleged researchers are getting their funding.

  107. Resonance is easy to measure by DavidHOzAu · · Score: 1

    \documentclass[12pt]{article}
    \usepackage{amsmath}
    \begin{document}
    One can measure the resonance of any object by dividing propagation speed by the object length. It's called the fundamental frequency.
    \begin{align}
    \text{Frequency} &= k * \frac{\text{speed}}{\text{length}} \\
    \text{where,} k &= 1/2 \text{\ or\ } 1/4\text{, depending on the material.}
    \intertext{Thus we can measure the frequency of the crust's natural resonance by dividing speed by wavelength.}
    \text{Frequency} &= \frac{\text{Propogation speed of aftershocks through crust}}{\text{length of crust in direction of travel}} \\
    &= \text{recipe to turn Earth into Quake 3 Arena.}
    \end{align}
    \end{document}
    \bye

  108. Earths Hum by psibrman · · Score: 1

    If this hum is caused by waves on the ocean floor, would a tsaumi change the pitch of the the hum and wouldn't that be detectable immediately.