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.'"

255 of 336 comments (clear)

  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: 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

    8. 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."
    9. 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'....

    10. 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.
    11. Re:Constant Hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

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

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

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

  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. 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?
  7. 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...

  8. 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 LMacG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who said anything about cats?

      --
      Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
    4. 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
    5. 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.
    6. 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...)

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

      Al Gore?

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

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

      Also, hell freezing over.

      It already has:

      Conditions in Hell, MI

    10. 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.

    11. 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.
    12. 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!
  9. 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"?
  10. 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.

  11. 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 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.
    4. 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
    5. 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?
  12. 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 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' !!
    7. Re:Hmmmmmmmm by Hamoohead · · Score: 1

      Butterflies.

      --
      "If your parents never had children, chances are you wonât either." -Dick Cavett
    8. 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.
  13. 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' !!
  14. 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 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."
    2. 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?
    3. Re:Interesting, but wrong by johnny+cashed · · Score: 1

      Damn nerds. Oh, wait, this is /.

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

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

    5. 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 !

    6. 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."
    7. 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."
    8. Re:Interesting, but wrong by Prune · · Score: 1

      LOL

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    9. 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.
    10. 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
    11. 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.
    12. Re:Interesting, but wrong by saider · · Score: 1

      Harmonics, my dear friend. Harmonics.

      Or Giant Bees.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    13. 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.

    14. 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!

    15. 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."
    16. Re:Interesting, but wrong by mistahkurtz · · Score: 1

      it's...covered in bees!

      --
      not only is time travel possible, it's irrelevant.
  15. 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 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."
  16. 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' !!
  17. 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
  18. 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.

  19. 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 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?

    3. 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
    4. 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....

    5. 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.
    6. Re:But wait! by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

      I din't knew whit you moan

    7. 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?

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

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

    9. 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
    10. 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.
    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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
    15. 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
    16. 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.

    17. 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
    18. 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.

    19. 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.

    20. 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.)
    21. 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
    22. 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
    23. 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.

    24. 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.)
    25. 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
  20. 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.

  21. 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.
  22. Balrog by tore · · Score: 5, Funny

    I always thought it was the Balrog humming.

    1. Re:Balrog by RexJ · · Score: 1

      No, Cthulhu snoring

  23. 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 AdamThor · · Score: 1

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

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
    2. 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.

  24. 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!

  25. 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!

  26. 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)

  27. 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...

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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 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.
    3. 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 ?

  31. 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.

  32. 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!

  33. 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.
  34. 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
  35. 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.

  36. 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....

  37. OR by missing000 · · Score: 1

    100 cycles per 10000 seconds, what about that?

  38. 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
  39. 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 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!

    8. 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 ;-)

    9. 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 ;-)

    10. 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!
  40. I guess I was just misinformed. by Harlow_B_Ashur · · Score: 1

    I thought Zappa had explained this one years ago.

  41. 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
  42. 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 mike2R · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
  43. 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.

  44. 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.
  45. 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.
  46. Wrong notation by mdsolar · · Score: 1

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

  47. 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 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.
    3. 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).

    4. 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.

  48. 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.
  49. 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.
  50. 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?

  51. 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
  52. I for one ... by nqz · · Score: 1

    would like to welcome our new underwater seismic overlords.

    I bow down to the hum.

  53. 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
  54. Obligitory Friends by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 1

    Rachel: It's coming from Joey

    Phoebe: Oh my God turn him off!

  55. Sorry... by ms1234 · · Score: 1

    ..I'll stop now.

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

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

    --
    I lost my sig...
  57. 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."
  58. 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?

  59. 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.
  60. Same thing as saying "global warming explained" by gd23ka · · Score: 1

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

  61. 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
  62. Humming? by cmeans · · Score: 1

    Guess that means the Earth can't sing.

  63. 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
  64. 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
  65. 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!

  66. 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."

  67. 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
  68. 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."
  69. Sorry by vbjay · · Score: 1, Funny

    Bad gas. Those beans are AWFUL.

  70. 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?
  71. 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".

  72. 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.

  73. 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

  74. 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").
  75. 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."
  76. 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"

  77. 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.
  78. Treebeard says . . . by Dragged+Down+by+the · · Score: 1

    It's the Ents!

  79. 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!

  80. Shlock by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  81. Re:10 millihertz by corndogg · · Score: 1

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

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

  82. 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.

  83. 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()?
  84. 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?
  85. In Soviet Russia by had3z · · Score: 1

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

    never mind :)

  86. 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
  87. 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
  88. 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.
  89. 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.

  90. 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

  91. 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

  92. 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.

  93. 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

  94. 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.