"white noise" monitoring?

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:58:20 +0000, Iceman-Jamie
wrote:

The reason you have'nt seen any evidence on "the sixth sense of animals"
is that there is no evidence we can prove.

First of all, "evidence" is nothing more than observation. It isn't
something to be "proven". Second, I didn't say I haven't seen evidence
of a "sixth sense" in animals. I have. There is no shortage of evidence
for animals sensing magnetic fields, electric fields, optical
polarization, and other things that as humans we have little or no
native ability to sense. What I said is that I haven't seen convincing
evidence that animals are sensitive to seismic events beyond the obvious
ability to hear them a few seconds earlier than people. I'm not talking
about theories here, I'm talking about evidence. There is no point in
developing a theory to explain something that can't even be observed!


And whats up with the dead and diseased animals comment? What, do you
hate animals that much that all diseases are their fault?

Did I say that? I simply pointed out that there were more dead animals
than dead people as a result of the tsunami. This is being reported
widely in the context of the resulting disease problems. My point was
simply that an awful lot of animals obviously failed to sense the
tsunami in enough time to escape.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On 23 Jan 2005 13:00:12 GMT, Frank Hofmann
wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote:

Noise is noise- by definition devoid of informational content. When you can put


That's not completely correct...

Yes, I realize that from a mathematical standpoint, "noise" is a complex
subject. And in information theory, pure noise in a sense represents
maximum information content because of its condition of zero correlation
or redundancy.

But in the context of this discussion, I think the statement is pretty
reasonable.

I have to admit that you're right

FrankH.

As a matter of fact, one of the recent earthquakes in California, I believe the
Parkfield (location?) one that has all the monitoring equipment there, was NOT
detected by the animals ahead of time. In fact, there was a definitely lack of
the usual anticipated precursors to such events - not electromagnetic anomalies,
low frequency sounds, et al. Shows that we don't know everything about
earthquakes even yet, and puzzles, and problems with pre-detection, remain.
--
Sincerely,
--- Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It don't mean a thing
unless it has that certain "je ne sais quoi"
Duke Ellington
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Iceman-Jamie" wrote in message
...

I have seen no convincing evidence at all that any animals detected the
tsunami. In fact, I've seen no convincing evidence that animals ever
routinely sense seismic activity, at least not more than a few seconds
earlier than people. I remember a couple of occasions when living in
California where the cat got spooked before a big earthquake- maybe
five
seconds before I first heart them. Nothing too mysterious there.
Certainly, in the areas affected by the recent tsunami, massive
numbers
of dead animals are contributing to the disease problem.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


The reason you have'nt seen any evidence on "the sixth sense of animals"
is that there is no evidence we can prove.The human race has become very
good at makeing theorys to things we dont understand. Remember what the
definition of theory is... an educated guess. That means if we cant prove
it in front of other peoples eyes, we make a guess. There are so many
things in the universe that we don't, can't and won't ever comprehend.
Maybe the forsight that animals have on seismic events is one of these
things. Maybe to them its just as clear as our sight, our taste, or our
ability to make things up...

And whats up with the dead and diseased animals comment? What, do you
hate animals that much that all diseases are their fault? What did that
have to do with "white noise" ?


--
Iceman-Jamie

John Carruthers wrote:
Like to read what others think.

The recordings I've heard all seem to be in modern English ;-) Odd ?

And most of them are nearby taxi rf breakthrough on inadequately
shielded leads...

Regards,
Martin Brown

Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:01:21 -0700, Tim Killian
wrote:

Spread spectrum signals can be broadcast at extremely low levels and
they don't alter the spectrum enough to be detectable without tremendous
effort. A receiver with the proper chipping sequence can extract the
signals from what appears to be random noise.

Yes, but I think what is being discussed is _people_ directly hearing or
seeing messages in noise. That's quite different from a spread spectrum
receiver doing it (and as you say, it just appears to be noise in that
case... it isn't really.)

I don't think people ever hear voices in noise that are not signal
breakthrough in badly designed experiments or pure imagination. Our
brain is geared to recognising patterns even where none exists - witness
the ink-blot test.

In radio astronomy the interference problem is usually from reflections
from the underside of commercial airliners (or for the VLA from White
Sands test range). Listen to enough white noise and you will eventually
believe you hear whatever you want to hear.

On the subject of anomalous detection, how do you suppose all of those
wild animals detected the imminent tsunami danger last month?

I have seen no convincing evidence at all that any animals detected the
tsunami. In fact, I've seen no convincing evidence that animals ever
routinely sense seismic activity, at least not more than a few seconds
earlier than people. I remember a couple of occasions when living in
California where the cat got spooked before a big earthquake- maybe five
seconds before I first heart them. Nothing too mysterious there.

It is explainable by conventional physics, but very few humans seem to
be aware of sounds at 18kHz and above. I have (had) acutely good high
frequency hearing and heard a couple of moderate sized earthquakes where
I was near the epicentre for several seconds before any sense of ground
movement was obvious. I never heard a distant big one.

They sounded to me like an express train approaching for want of a
better description. It doesn't surprise me at all that animals with even
better extended high frequency hearing can sense the initial stage of an
earthquake (at least near to the fault line).

Certainly, in the areas affected by the recent tsunami, massive numbers
of dead animals are contributing to the disease problem.

A tsunami is different. Apart from knowing what it means when the sea
goes out unexpectedly there is nothing much that humans can do about it.
(except run for high ground)

I doubt that any animals have innate knowledge of tsunamis - they are
far too rare. Fish got caught out by the rapidly receeding tide prior to
the inrush. Most people are unaware of the warning signs.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Originally Posted by Martin Brown

Chris L Peterson wrote:
[color=blue][i]

It is explainable by conventional physics, but very few humans seem to
be aware of sounds at 18kHz and above. I have (had) acutely good high
frequency hearing and heard a couple of moderate sized earthquakes where
I was near the epicentre for several seconds before any sense of ground
movement was obvious. I never heard a distant big one.

They sounded to me like an express train approaching for want of a
better description. It doesn't surprise me at all that animals with even
better extended high frequency hearing can sense the initial stage of an
earthquake (at least near to the fault line).


Regards,
Martin Brown

I too have had the experience of hearing the quake before the shake. Here in Iceland in 2000 we had 3 quakes rangeing from 6.5 to 5.2 and for two of those I heard a rumble before the shakeing...quite exciteing.

"Iceman-Jamie" wrote in message
...

Since we're already off topic and there is someone from Iceland to possibly
answer this:
A few years ago I flew from Shannon, Ireland to New York. During the flight
I thought I saw glaciers. Do you know if transatlantic planes get far enough
north to go over Iceland or Greenland? Thanks, Paul

Paul Murphy wrote:
"Iceman-Jamie" wrote in
message
...

Since we're already off topic and there is someone from Iceland to
possibly
answer this:
A few years ago I flew from Shannon, Ireland to New York. During the
flight
I thought I saw glaciers. Do you know if transatlantic planes get far
enough
north to go over Iceland or Greenland? Thanks, Paul

Well, that depends on the route and winds, sometime the tracks the
aircraft use are so far north that all the traffic goes over the
Greenland glaciers and some of it over Iceland, sometimes they are
routed far to the south of Greenland and Iceland.
(note that Greenland extends far to the south of Iceland, the
southernmost tip is around 58=B0N)

Martin Brown wrote:
In radio astronomy the interference problem is usually from reflections
from the underside of commercial airliners (or for the VLA from White
Sands test range). Listen to enough white noise and you will eventually
believe you hear whatever you want to hear.

Oh, why did you mention this!! Now the FAA is going to ban the use of
amateur radio astronomy because it might be terrorist related activity! :-)

--
~Sayf

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:53:34 GMT, "Paul Murphy"
wrote:


"Iceman-Jamie" wrote in message
...

Since we're already off topic and there is someone from Iceland to possibly
answer this:
A few years ago I flew from Shannon, Ireland to New York. During the flight
I thought I saw glaciers. Do you know if transatlantic planes get far enough
north to go over Iceland or Greenland? Thanks, Paul

A web site that is fun to play with is the Great Circle Mapper:
http://gc.kls2.com.