danbob555 wrote:

Princess Luna wrote:You have to remember that we have only explored maybe 95% of the world's oceans.

I don't mean to correct you, but it's 95% that we haven't explored. Only 5% is explored as of right now. The surface and anything less than a couple miles below the surface.

Oh! Heh heh, I meant to put "haven't". Ah, the consequences of typing really fast.

Princess Luna wrote:

danbob555 wrote:

Princess Luna wrote:You have to remember that we have only explored maybe 95% of the world's oceans.

I don't mean to correct you, but it's 95% that we haven't explored. Only 5% is explored as of right now. The surface and anything less than a couple miles below the surface.

Oh! Heh heh, I meant to put "haven't". Ah, the consequences of typing really fast.

It happens to the best of us.

danbob555 wrote: The Bloop has been estimated at 246 dB!

[citation needed]
You didn't specify the pressure that the measurement was relative to, so I'm going to assume that it's 1 μPa (Common for underwater readings). Remember that acoustic measurement is heavily dependent on the medium in which the sound is traveling through. Sound intensity measured in air (20 μPa) is not equal to the same sound travelling through water (1 μPa), in fact it has a difference of ~60 on the dB scale due to changes in pressure and density. [1] (~1 million times as strong underwater) So if we were to compare "The Bloop" to other sounds heard via air, it would actually be ~186dB. (The same thing applies to the blue whale data, the equivalent intensity in air is ~128dB)

At the end of the day though, there are plenty of sounds underwater that produce similar intensities. (Lightning strikes for example, produce ~260dB re 1 μPa 1m away from source) [2]

[1]: http://www.dosits.org/science/soundsinthesea/airwater/
[2]: http://www.dosits.org/science/soundsint ... monsounds/ || http://www.dosits.org/science/soundsint ... reference/

MonocleBios wrote:

danbob555 wrote: The Bloop has been estimated at 246 dB!

[citation needed]
You didn't specify the pressure that the measurement was relative to, so I'm going to assume that it's 1 μPa (Common for underwater readings). Remember that acoustic measurement is heavily dependent on the medium in which the sound is traveling through. Sound intensity measured in air (20 μPa) is not equal to the same sound travelling through water (1 μPa), in fact it has a difference of ~60 on the dB scale. [1] (~1 million times as strong underwater) So if we were to compare "The Bloop" to other sounds heard via air, it would actually be ~186dB. (The same thing applies to the blue whale data, the equivalent intensity in air is ~128dB)

At the end of the day though, there are plenty of sounds underwater that produce similar intensities. (Lightning strikes for example, produce ~260dB re 1 μPa 1m away from source) [2]

[1]: http://www.dosits.org/science/soundsinthesea/airwater/
[2]: http://www.dosits.org/science/soundsint ... monsounds/ || http://www.dosits.org/science/soundsint ... reference/

Wow, thanks for researching!
Also, don't forget, the devices we made weren't designed to record anything above a blue whale's frequency, so maybe the microphones topped off at a certain level, and it could have been read it as ">168 dB" and they automatically assumed it was greater than 200.

Maybe a device like this, and the needle was pushed all the way to the right.
If it was, we wouldn't know if it was just 2dB above the maximum recording capability or hundreds.

This gives further evidence that the bloop did not come from an icequake, and that it could be from a much larger creature than the one depicted earlier. Just how big do you think this creature would be? I believe it wiuld be at least five times bigger than megalodon.

Princess Luna wrote:This gives further evidence that the bloop did not come from an icequake

How so exactly? The sound of ice merely breaking produces 193dB re 1 μPa 1m away from source. Not to mention that other seismic events such as underwater volcanic eruptions produce similar intensities of noise (255dB re 1 μPa at 1m)[1] Just saying that this sound, while abnormal, isn't as loud as many people seem to think it is.

[1]: See [2] in previous post.

...

The earth crust could of cracked!
It would just harden over again but it could go for miles if it cracked, the mass moment could create a very intense low frequency shock wave.
Un an unrelated note you might like this
[youtube]vLNbzZmBOmI[/youtube]

I'd like to point out to monoclebios that the sound was recorded in a specific location, as seen in Danbob's post on page 4. Looking at this , don't you think its a bit too far North to be a simple icequake?

Omniary: fuck you anglerfish can't smell
Dr. Trialtrex21: how you know bitch
Omniary: it probably could smell you though
could probably smell your fucking dank ass nasty powersuit structure gel trog ass enslaved protein bullshit sloshing in your suit from a mile away

Trialtrex21 wrote:I'd like to point out to monoclebios that the sound was recorded in a specific location, as seen in Danbob's post on page 4. Looking at this , don't you think its a bit too far North to be a simple icequake?

While 50oS is an incredibly rare latitude for an iceberg to be at, it isn't unheard of. New Zealand had a few back in '06 [1]. What I think is likely the best evidence against an iceberg being in such a location is the longitude. 100oW is such a weird place for an object originating from Antarctica to end up, given that cold ocean currents in the area flow east, a piece would have to drift all the way from somewhere near the Getz Ice Shelf.

[1]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... aland.html