6 ms·

I don't understand this. What, is there an archive out there that has every recorded sound by every single human being and along with has complete information

by hasenj 14y ago

I don't understand this. What, is there an archive out there that has every recorded sound by every single human being and along with has complete information about the recording, and only these 7 clips are not understood?

pavel_lishin 14y ago
> This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.
riffraff 14y ago
it goes the other way (grouping of things, rather than subsetting): 1. X sound is found and nobody understands what causes it 2. X gets a wikipedia page 3. someone creates a list of various pages such as X 4. optional, some other people add more pages such as X having noticed the list
lifeisstillgood 14y ago
Partly - the specific ones all seem NOAA originated, which iirr is the American oceanographer group. They along with Navy proper have very vested interests in identifing unusual ocean sounds. But just as you can find parrots that say good morning, given enough fish swimming past enough deep seamicrophones, eventually one ofthem will sound like they are whistling a braoadway tune sorry folks, fun, creepy but in the end self selecting and probably in the strange things happen on the planet category.
- kmm 14y ago
  The sounds are extremely loud and some of them are recurring. Impossible for a fish to cause something like that. The explanation is probably quite prosaic, like ice creeping over Antartica, yet the sounds do carry some significance.
  - yuushi 14y ago
    Even if it is a natural phenomenon, am I alone in thinking that it is still interesting?
    - kmm 14y ago
      Absolutely not. I think a lot of people are intrigued by this.
- raverbashing 14y ago
  "Skeptical thinking" at its best I'm really hoping you are a troll, because otherwise you're in "youtube commenter" category of intelligence "eventually one ofthem will sound like they are whistling a braoadway tune"" Yes, please explain how a school of fish can create a sound with that power and spectrum, because you obviously know so much about mathematical wave properties and the laws of conservation of energy. "NOAA originated, which iirr is the American oceanographer group"" Yes, and NASA works with planes and stuff
  - lifeisstillgood 14y ago
    I do hate it when someone on the Internet thinks I am a troll. Firstly, yes I am sure I should have phrased my position better. So lets try that - If you listen to hundreds of hydrophones over hundreds of hours, and hear only a handful of unexplained sounds, and promote only half a dozen, it is unlikely what you promote is of scientific interest. It may be interesting but not of interest. And thats it. NOAA has done no more then say some of its findings it cannot explain ... and then self-selected a few that sound a bit weird. This does not make them important, relevant, repeatable, or admitting of no explanation whatsoever. Just not explained now. And later they could explain some (Upsweep being a volcano that was thought extinct) And 'we' then anthropomorphize. Can we hear the word Julia? No we cannot. (go listen to the TED talk below - last 3 minutes) I recognise there are many things in a deep ocean we have not seen or discovered (I liked Bill Brysons analogy that we had explored the Oceans depths as if we explored Central Park using 5 guys on tractors, at night with torches). But weird sounds that you have to squint at to find meaning in. Squarely in the Skeptical category of for me publication bias and anchoring. I am unclear what is a mathematical wave property, but I am clear that it is reasonable to use fish singing broadway melodies as a stand-in for unusual events underneath the ocean waves. I was not suggesting that to be a literal explanation. (Even though it would be a good one to hear) Oceanographer comment: (NOAA- Yes, Oceanographers - measuring and mapping the ocean - with 3bn of their 5bn budget aimed at satellites, weather monitoring and plain old research, I am happy to categorise them as Oceanographers. Yes they do other important stuff too. But mostly they monitor the water/air co-systems on the planet. links: http://www.whaletrust.org/whales/whale_song.shtml http://www.whaletrust.org/whales/whale_song.shtml http://www.noaa.gov/budget/ http://www.noaa.gov/budget/ http://asia.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/06/13/bloop/index.html http://asia.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/06/13/bloop/index.html RIght -waaaay too long on a rebuttal that frankly is not detailed enough and will get flamed if anyone bothers reading it. Work now.
mynameishere 14y ago
I understand the list but I don't know how this stuff gets frontpaged so often in so many places. "Bloop" "Bloop" Wow. Maybe it was the loch ness monster on vacation. Or maybe...a bubble. I mean, come on.
- JonnieCache 14y ago
  The sample is at 16x the original speed. And was heard over 5000km. In other words, not a bubble. Or if it was, it was a bubble worthy of its own wiki page.
  - mynameishere 14y ago
    Yeah, ok. It could have been wonderful, tremendous things. IE, lochy. But I've seen this on front pages at least 50 times and there has not been the tiniest insight into what that is beyond nothing at all. Occam's razor: It was a bubble, an electrical malfunction, a manufactured hoax, etc. Why don't you post a shaky video of bigfoot instead? At least the imagination has something to chew on there.
    - JonnieCache 14y ago
      Or it could be something actually real and interesting like the shrimp layer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkgJQ1Fpwm4#t=1140s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkgJQ1Fpwm4#t=1140s
    - Deestan 14y ago
      Occam's Razor isn't "jump to simple conclusions" or "don't bother thinking about it". It's a rule of thumb stating that you should pick the simplest of two equivalent explanations. In this case there aren't even any proposed explanations, so it does not even apply.

by hasenj 14y ago

pavel_lishin 14y ago

> This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.

riffraff 14y ago

it goes the other way (grouping of things, rather than subsetting): 1. X sound is found and nobody understands what causes it 2. X gets a wikipedia page 3. someone creates a list of various pages such as X 4. optional, some other people add more pages such as X having noticed the list

lifeisstillgood 14y ago

Partly - the specific ones all seem NOAA originated, which iirr is the American oceanographer group. They along with Navy proper have very vested interests in identifing unusual ocean sounds. But just as you can find parrots that say good morning, given enough fish swimming past enough deep seamicrophones, eventually one ofthem will sound like they are whistling a braoadway tune sorry folks, fun, creepy but in the end self selecting and probably in the strange things happen on the planet category.

kmm 14y ago
The sounds are extremely loud and some of them are recurring. Impossible for a fish to cause something like that. The explanation is probably quite prosaic, like ice creeping over Antartica, yet the sounds do carry some significance.
- yuushi 14y ago
  Even if it is a natural phenomenon, am I alone in thinking that it is still interesting?
  - kmm 14y ago
    Absolutely not. I think a lot of people are intrigued by this.
raverbashing 14y ago
"Skeptical thinking" at its best I'm really hoping you are a troll, because otherwise you're in "youtube commenter" category of intelligence "eventually one ofthem will sound like they are whistling a braoadway tune"" Yes, please explain how a school of fish can create a sound with that power and spectrum, because you obviously know so much about mathematical wave properties and the laws of conservation of energy. "NOAA originated, which iirr is the American oceanographer group"" Yes, and NASA works with planes and stuff
- lifeisstillgood 14y ago
  I do hate it when someone on the Internet thinks I am a troll. Firstly, yes I am sure I should have phrased my position better. So lets try that - If you listen to hundreds of hydrophones over hundreds of hours, and hear only a handful of unexplained sounds, and promote only half a dozen, it is unlikely what you promote is of scientific interest. It may be interesting but not of interest. And thats it. NOAA has done no more then say some of its findings it cannot explain ... and then self-selected a few that sound a bit weird. This does not make them important, relevant, repeatable, or admitting of no explanation whatsoever. Just not explained now. And later they could explain some (Upsweep being a volcano that was thought extinct) And 'we' then anthropomorphize. Can we hear the word Julia? No we cannot. (go listen to the TED talk below - last 3 minutes) I recognise there are many things in a deep ocean we have not seen or discovered (I liked Bill Brysons analogy that we had explored the Oceans depths as if we explored Central Park using 5 guys on tractors, at night with torches). But weird sounds that you have to squint at to find meaning in. Squarely in the Skeptical category of for me publication bias and anchoring. I am unclear what is a mathematical wave property, but I am clear that it is reasonable to use fish singing broadway melodies as a stand-in for unusual events underneath the ocean waves. I was not suggesting that to be a literal explanation. (Even though it would be a good one to hear) Oceanographer comment: (NOAA- Yes, Oceanographers - measuring and mapping the ocean - with 3bn of their 5bn budget aimed at satellites, weather monitoring and plain old research, I am happy to categorise them as Oceanographers. Yes they do other important stuff too. But mostly they monitor the water/air co-systems on the planet. links: http://www.whaletrust.org/whales/whale_song.shtml http://www.whaletrust.org/whales/whale_song.shtml http://www.noaa.gov/budget/ http://www.noaa.gov/budget/ http://asia.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/06/13/bloop/index.html http://asia.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/06/13/bloop/index.html RIght -waaaay too long on a rebuttal that frankly is not detailed enough and will get flamed if anyone bothers reading it. Work now.

mynameishere 14y ago

I understand the list but I don't know how this stuff gets frontpaged so often in so many places. "Bloop" "Bloop" Wow. Maybe it was the loch ness monster on vacation. Or maybe...a bubble. I mean, come on.

JonnieCache 14y ago
The sample is at 16x the original speed. And was heard over 5000km. In other words, not a bubble. Or if it was, it was a bubble worthy of its own wiki page.
- mynameishere 14y ago
  Yeah, ok. It could have been wonderful, tremendous things. IE, lochy. But I've seen this on front pages at least 50 times and there has not been the tiniest insight into what that is beyond nothing at all. Occam's razor: It was a bubble, an electrical malfunction, a manufactured hoax, etc. Why don't you post a shaky video of bigfoot instead? At least the imagination has something to chew on there.
  - JonnieCache 14y ago
    Or it could be something actually real and interesting like the shrimp layer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkgJQ1Fpwm4#t=1140s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkgJQ1Fpwm4#t=1140s
  - Deestan 14y ago
    Occam's Razor isn't "jump to simple conclusions" or "don't bother thinking about it". It's a rule of thumb stating that you should pick the simplest of two equivalent explanations. In this case there aren't even any proposed explanations, so it does not even apply.