Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
evil_mika

"the bloop"

299 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

angrycrustacean

Oh, btw. No respectable biologist firmly states whatever created the bloop must be bigger than the blue whale. That's just what the public think.

Got a source saying that no respectable biologists say that, or am I to trust your Google wisdom?

I don't neccessarily believe that the bloop was produced by some fantastic new creature, however I'm not so quick to dismiss it.

Remember that water has vastly different acoustic properties from air. Note that the loudest animal, the blue whale, is also marine. By contrast, all those small animals you listed as runners-up are terrestrial. It would have been far more convincing for you to have listed animals that were at least marine, seeing as the bloop was marine in origin. Even then, however, there are limitations. For example, a dolphin's echolocation chirps may have high decibel values, BUT:

The frequency of the noises also has to be taken into account. It's not all about volume. Low-pitched frequencies can travel much farther in both air and water than high frequencies, and the bloop was quite far-reaching. Additionally, you need a correspondingly large noise-making mechanism. There's a reason subwoofer drivers are larger than tweeter drivers. ;)

I can't accurately express my sentiments without getting modslapped, but suffice to say I thought your little "vacation" would have at least temporarily stopped you from being a condescending prick...oh how I was wrong.

Edited by angrycrustacean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frogfish
ot a source saying that no respectable biologists say that, or am I to trust your Google wisdom?

I don't neccessarily believe that the bloop was produced by some fantastic new creature, however I'm not so quick to dismiss it.

Remember that water has vastly different acoustic properties from air. Note that the loudest animal, the blue whale, is also marine. By contrast, all those small animals you listed as runners-up are terrestrial. It would have been far more convincing for you to have listed animals that were at least marine, seeing as the bloop was marine in origin. Even then, however, there are limitations. For example, a dolphin's echolocation chirps may have high decibel values, BUT:

The frequency of the noises also has to be taken into account. It's not all about volume. Low-pitched frequencies can travel much farther in both air and water than high frequencies, and the bloop was quite far-reaching. Additionally, you need a correspondingly large noise-making mechanism. There's a reason subwoofer drivers are larger than tweeter drivers.

I can't accurately express my sentiments without getting modslapped, but suffice to say I thought your little "vacation" would have at least temporarily stopped you from being a condescending prick...oh how I was wrong.

Apparently you miss the point. My point is that a saying the loud noise was created by a large animal is foolish. Why don't you debate that other than dancing around the point.

Additionally, you need a correspondingly large noise-making mechanism.

The Cicada. The Howler Monkey. The Black Drum. The Screech Owl. Want any more?

Remember that water has vastly different acoustic properties from air. Note that the loudest animal, the blue whale, is also marine. By contrast, all those small animals you listed as runners-up are terrestrial. It would have been far more convincing for you to have listed animals that were at least marine, seeing as the bloop was marine in origin. Even then, however, there are limitations. For example, a dolphin's echolocation chirps may have high decibel values, BUT:

Your ability to google is amazing, but can you accurately refute my original statement, which you pathetically tried to jab at?

Got a source saying that no respectable biologists say that, or am I to trust your Google wisdom?

Do you have a source that even said a biologist made the remark that the sound must of been made by a large animal. I would love to see it if you do :yes:

I can't accurately express my sentiments without getting modslapped, but suffice to say I thought your little "vacation" would have at least temporarily stopped you from being a condescending prick...oh how I was wrong

And I see you haven't lost your provocative and immature behavior either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frogfish
Basing the size of an animal by the sound it makes is foolish.

Original statement if you forgot what it is.

Oh, you might like this:

IPB Image\

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silentom
Could be in response to this movie -
. Personally looks more like a GL shark to me.

That there looks like a Sleeper Shark to me! As far as if it could make a sound that big,

I really dont think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bloodyfish

A whale would have to go up for air. If it was that huge, we would see it. Something like a squid, i heard some reason its not possible. I think its a fish. Oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
angrycrustacean

The Cicada. The Howler Monkey. The Black Drum. The Screech Owl. Want any more?

Nice misinterpretation there. Note that that my statement regarding noise-making mechanism size was in the context of frequency, not volume.

Your ability to google is amazing,

Amusing, given this:

Oh, you might like this:

IPB Image\

but can you accurately refute my original statement, which you pathetically tried to jab at?

In terms of volume, no. In terms of frequency, yes. As I already attempted to tell you, low frequencies require large sources. Regardless of how large an animal's noisemaking mechanism is in reference to its body size, for instance in the case of the cicada, it is still too small to make low frequency noises. The fact is, a cricket can not create a frequency as low as, say, a bear's roar, because of the size difference in the sources of their respective calls.

It stands to reason then, that an animal making, say, a 20Hz noise is harbouring a large mechanism for making that noise, and would logically be bigger, excluding some radically unknown physiological development. Volume is not an issue.

Do you have a source that even said a biologist made the remark that the sound must of been made by a large animal. I would love to see it if you do

Fair enough, I don't. Pending one of us posts a source, then, this segment of our argument would appear to be a stalemate.

Now, in reference to your little picture...

Phons are a unit of perceived loudness, not actual loudness. Audio is my hobby, so I stay abreast of these things. In case you don't believe me, here's a little snippet from the site you hotlinked that image from, which maybe you missed, or hoped I wouldn't know:

The phon is a unit that is related to dB by the psychophysically measured frequency response of the ear.

It's a very nice graph, but as a Fletcher-Munson curve it relates to the human ear and is not applicable to the current situation.

For further information on the phon and why it's not applicable here, you may look here.

Edited by angrycrustacean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Annointer

Apparently you miss the point. My point is that a saying the loud noise was created by a large animal is foolish. Why don't you debate that other than dancing around the point.

How would you know it's foolish? You don't know what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frogfish
How would you know it's foolish? You don't know what it is.

It foolish because it is WRONG. Not all large animals make loud noises and not all loud noises are made by large animals.

Volume is not an issue.

Here, it IS the issue. A loud noise was heard underwater. The noise could of been made by something that weighed 100 lbs or 100 tons. It is foolish just to think that it had to be larger than a blue whale.

Nice misinterpretation there. Note that that my statement regarding noise-making mechanism size was in the context of frequency, not volume.

Do you still miss the point? I'm not talking about frequency, I'm talking about the size of the animal. This is Biology, not audio. Do you have anything to say about my Original Post?

Basing the size of an animal by the sound it makes is foolish.

If you have nothing to say, you shouldn;t of said anything at all :tu:

Edited by frogfish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Annointer

It foolish because it is WRONG.

Whoa your opinion is overwhelming evidence!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frogfish
Whoa your opinion is overwhelming evidence!

It's common sense it's wrong. If you disagree, let's see some evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silentom

On terms of the original post it said a loud noise was heard!

This has nothing to do with frequency.

So upon saying that i will have to take what frogfish has to say into concideration!

Edited by Silentom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
angrycrustacean
Here, it IS the issue. A loud noise was heard underwater. The noise could of been made by something that weighed 100 lbs or 100 tons. It is foolish just to think that it had to be larger than a blue whale.

Again, I agree, but only in terms of volume. The OP article DOES mention frequency.

Here:

Each time that it was captured the ultra-low frequency sound rose rapidly in frequency over about one minute

And here:

IPB Image\

Do you still miss the point? I'm not talking about frequency, I'm talking about the size of the animal.

Do I need to say this slowly or something? The noise was low frequency. Low frequency requires a large source. Large source requires large animal. Easy. Note that large in this context refers to actual size and range of the noise-producing mechanisms, NOT their volume or size in relation to the animal.

This has nothing to do with frequency.

Re-read the article. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Annointer

It's common sense it's wrong. If you disagree, let's see some evidence.

Why do i need evidence when i'm not the one dictating what's right or wrong?

If you say this is common sense you apparently know what made the noise. Maybe you could educate everyone. The field of science could really use your superior brain.

Edited by Annointer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverCougar

It's common sense it's wrong. If you disagree, let's see some evidence.

Edit: Removed name calling- Lottie.

Your first mistake was listing terrestial animals, not marine ones.

You basicaly compaired apples to pomagranites. For some kinda "scientist" you leave alot to be desired. Even I knew that sound, pitch, and frequency travels differently in water then air. So you would have *MAYBE* proven your point if you had named voicalized marine animals and not terrestial ones. I don't see many howler monkeys out in the middle of the Pacific.

The thing is we don't *KNOW* what made that sound. Some of the best biologists actually do think it was made by an animal. And unless I see in the news that you yourself went down into the area this bloop was recorded from to search for actual possibilities, you have no right to make statements of fact. Becuase the only fact is that no one knows and it's all speculations. It could be a whale blowing gass for all we know. It could be air or methaine releast from the earth's mantle... Or a giant clam fart.

Edit: Removed name calling - Lottie

Edited by Lottie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my_psychosis

Edit: Removed name calling - Lottie

You basicaly compaired apples to pomagranites. For some kinda "scientist" you leave alot to be desired. Even I knew that sound, pitch, and frequency travels differently in water then air. So you would have *MAYBE* proven your point if you had named voicalized marine animals and not terrestial ones. I don't see many howler monkeys out in the middle of the Pacific.

The thing is we don't *KNOW* what made that sound. Some of the best biologists actually do think it was made by an animal And unless I see in the news that you yourself went down into the area this bloop was recorded from to search for actual possibilities, you have no right to make statements of fact. Becuase the only fact is that know one knows and it's all speculations. It could be a whale blowing gass for all we know. It could be air or methaine releast from the earth's mantle... Or a giant clam fart.

Edit: Removed name calling - Lottie

Yeah. Very well said. :yes:

Edited by Lottie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler

Edit: Removed name calling - Lottie

Your first mistake was listing terrestial animals, not marine ones.

You basicaly compaired apples to pomagranites. For some kinda "scientist" you leave alot to be desired. Even I knew that sound, pitch, and frequency travels differently in water then air. So you would have *MAYBE* proven your point if you had named voicalized marine animals and not terrestial ones. I don't see many howler monkeys out in the middle of the Pacific.

The thing is we don't *KNOW* what made that sound. Some of the best biologists actually do think it was made by an animal. And unless I see in the news that you yourself went down into the area this bloop was recorded from to search for actual possibilities, you have no right to make statements of fact. Becuase the only fact is that no one knows and it's all speculations. It could be a whale blowing gass for all we know. It could be air or methaine releast from the earth's mantle... Or a giant clam fart.

Edit: Removed name calling - Lottie

Understand "skippy" isn't a"scientist". He is a 14 year old homeschooler with a lot of time on his hands so likes to come here, insult people and "pretend" he is a scientist.

You are right, of course. Sounds emitted by terrestrial animals cannot be compared with aquatic ones, and if the formers calls were to be transmitted underwater they would be insignificant compared to that of the blue whale, and even more so thi unknown sounding reported in the OP.

It was posted in this forum before, that on a National Geographic program a "real" marine biologist reported whale-like vocalizations, but of a completely unknown type while looking for the lake monster "Champ" which by description suggests a creature in form of a primitive Zeuglodon type whale, very serpentine in form and capable of producing the oft-reported "sea serpent humps".

This is an apparently large, but very secretive and elusive creature. If it can elude researchers in a lake, even larger creatures could unquestionably elude researchers in the ocean, save for, in both instances, the calls they emit.

Edited by Lottie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Urisk

Edit: Removed name calling - Lottie

Your first mistake was listing terrestial animals, not marine ones.

You basicaly compaired apples to pomagranites. For some kinda "scientist" you leave alot to be desired. Even I knew that sound, pitch, and frequency travels differently in water then air. So you would have *MAYBE* proven your point if you had named voicalized marine animals and not terrestial ones. I don't see many howler monkeys out in the middle of the Pacific.

The thing is we don't *KNOW* what made that sound. Some of the best biologists actually do think it was made by an animal. And unless I see in the news that you yourself went down into the area this bloop was recorded from to search for actual possibilities, you have no right to make statements of fact. Becuase the only fact is that no one knows and it's all speculations. It could be a whale blowing gass for all we know. It could be air or methaine releast from the earth's mantle... Or a giant clam fart.

Edit: Removed name calling - Lottie

Interesting thought regarding sound-generating animals and water. There is a crab, I can't recall the name, that knocks its prey out by snapping a pincer shut at such force that the vibrations caused in the water stuns the prey outright. Now, you can hear the result about a second after the pincers have clamped shut, which, IIRC, gave surveyors and marine biologists a lot of grief wondering where the hell all this sound comes from. What Frogfish was trying to say is that just because an animal is big, doesn't mean it makes loud noises. Which is fair enough. I don't agree with his delivery, but I do know what he's trying to say. It's not impossible fori t to be some large underwater animal, but at the same time it's still completely viable to be a small animal probucing a biiig sound.

'Course it could just be seizmic activity. I'm sure those hydrothermal vents make a Helluva racket every now and then. I'm sure they do at the best of times as the superheated water hits the 2-3 degrees seawater.

Sooo... can we put our rattles away and discuss this like adults now? :D (couldn't resist).

With respect to DC's post, talking about sea serpents and this dorso-ventral movement (and undulation) of the spine to make "humps", too true. It's silly to think these animals, if they exist, are reptiles because reptile spines just don't bend that way. They bend left-right, not up and down like mammals. Really a more plausable explanation for sea serpents and lake/loch monsters would be of mammalian stock. Really.

Edited by Lottie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frogfish

Edit: Removed name calling - Lottie

Your first mistake was listing terrestial animals, not marine ones.

You basicaly compaired apples to pomagranites. For some kinda "scientist" you leave alot to be desired. Even I knew that sound, pitch, and frequency travels differently in water then air. So you would have *MAYBE* proven your point if you had named voicalized marine animals and not terrestial ones. I don't see many howler monkeys out in the middle of the Pacific.

The thing is we don't *KNOW* what made that sound. Some of the best biologists actually do think it was made by an animal. And unless I see in the news that you yourself went down into the area this bloop was recorded from to search for actual possibilities, you have no right to make statements of fact. Becuase the only fact is that no one knows and it's all speculations. It could be a whale blowing gass for all we know. It could be air or methaine releast from the earth's mantle... Or a giant clam fart.

Edit: Removed name calling - Lottie

And yet how much more evidence my posts have presented than yours. If you have nothing to contribute, then shut your mouth :)

Edited by Lottie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frogfish
There is a crab, I can't recall the name, that knocks its prey out by snapping a pincer shut at such force that the vibrations caused in the water stuns the prey outright.

Pistol Shrimp? They superheat the water when they 'click' their pincers. Pretty amazing.

I'm still looking for someone to prove that a large noise must of been created by a large animals. Because that was the statement that was attacked.

So, if anyone has anything to contribute, please do so :tu:

The thing is we don't *KNOW* what made that sound. Some of the best biologists actually do think it was made by an animal. And unless I see in the news that you yourself went down into the area this bloop was recorded from to search for actual possibilities, you have no right to make statements of fact

WHy don't you go and actually read my post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Carnivore

Pistol Shrimp? They superheat the water when they 'click' their pincers. Pretty amazing.

Actually, the pistol shrimps' sonic defense is caused by the collapse of air bubbles when it snaps it's claw.

Atleast, that's what the marine biologists say.

Edited by sadistic jellyfish of doom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frogfish
Actually, the pistol shrimps' sonic defense is caused by the collapse of air bubbles when it snaps it's claw

Oh really? I didn;t know that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Carnivore

Oh really? I didn;t know that

Yeah. Here's some info:

Snapping effect

The pistol shrimp snaps a specialized claw shut to create a cavitation wave that generates noise in excess of 200 decibels, capable of killing small fish and breaking glass up to 1.8 metres away. The snap can also produce sonoluminescence from a collapsing bubble, also known as cavitation bubble. This has been dubbed "shrimpoluminescence". The light is of lower intensity than the light produced by typical sonoluminescence and is not visible to the naked eye. It is most likely a by-product of the shock wave with no biological significance. However, it is the first known instance of an animal producing light by this effect.

It is thought that when the bubble implodes a very small region momentarily reaches temperatures of several thousand kelvins, comparable to the temperature of the outer layer of the Sun

Taken from Wikipedia.

Well, it looks like we were both somewhat right.

Edited by sadistic jellyfish of doom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverCougar

And yet how much more evidence my posts have presented than yours. If you have nothing to contribute, then shut your mouth :)

Actually my posts contributes alot.. if anything to get you to see that you're not the end all and begin all to all things scientific.

You'd have thought that little time out session given you would have made you realize that. Ah well.. somepeople just refuse to learn. My post wasn't to bring evidence into the whole thing, but to prove that *YOU* do not know what it could truly be, and right out dissmissing someone's elses view as a "could be" saying that it's a fact that it's not. *snorts* When you hardly know what it is yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
makaya325

It foolish because it is WRONG. Not all large animals make loud noises and not all loud noises are made by large animals.

Here, it IS the issue. A loud noise was heard underwater. The noise could of been made by something that weighed 100 lbs or 100 tons. It is foolish just to think that it had to be larger than a blue whale.

Do you still miss the point? I'm not talking about frequency, I'm talking about the size of the animal. This is Biology, not audio. Do you have anything to say about my Original Post?

If you have nothing to say, you shouldn;t of said anything at all :tu:

but its pretty plausible that it mightve been bigger than a blue whale, but it isnt certain. it just mightve been a giant something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
makaya325

ok frogfish, im actually going up to lake champlain in a few weeks. if by some chance, i catch a baby specimen of champ, will you take back everything you thought was nonsense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.