[Top] [All Lists]

Re: the lowest natural sound yet detected

Subject: Re: the lowest natural sound yet detected
From: "Rich Peet" <>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 03:39:39 -0000
I am still here. Izzy didn't blow hard enough and I made errors in 
the choice of a client... 

I for one think that the people that published this information about 
b flats should be called in for their lies.

I don't believe for a second that they observed sound. Nor did they 
see any motion of these waves during their 53 hour observation of a 
place that was 250,000,000 light years away.

I also don't believe for a second that their math is anything other 
than fiction in deciding it was a B Flat vs a B when changing the 
calculation over 57 octaves in a medium that they have no clue about 
what would be the transmission speed and did not define.

I further did not see an explaination of how these particles travel 
by compression in a near vacume without collisions with other nearby 

Maybe some time in the future someone will understand theses rings 
that are seen.  But we already observe rings around large objects 
with compression between bands.  Such as we see around Jupiter and 
Saturn and these are not sound waves.

So to me this is all bs.

Rich Peet

--- In  Dan Dugan <> wrote:
> Scott Shepard wrote:
> >If you define sound as periodic rarefications and compressions of 
a gas
> >medium, then this is not a sound.  What has been detected, over 
all that
> >distance and time, is electromagnetic radiation.  By the same 
token, the
> >signals traveling through your audio cables are not sound.  They 
> >electrical signals ANALOGOUS to a sound event.  Takes a transducer 
> >as a microphone or speaker to convert between the two.
> >
> >It's easy to confuse them, I remember some confusion about it 
coming up
> >in my electroacoustics class in EE school.  The point of the 
story, I
> >think, is that the frequency of the electromagnetic signal 
detected was
> >such that, if it were a sound, it would be the pitch indicated.  
> >very precise scientific journalism, calling it a sound.
> You misunderstand the original evidence. No super-low-frequency 
> electromagnetic signal has been detected. What has been seen 
> (visually) is waves of compression and rarification in interstellar 
> gas. From the photographs the speed and wavelength has been 
> calculated. Compression waves in gas are properly described as 
> -Dan Dugan


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU