Mystery of the spinning museum statue

Hmmm.... Wonder why it doesn't move at night?

[video=youtube;S0fbWm9tdHE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S0fbWm9tdHE[/video]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually I can see it still moving a little at night in the first few takes. Not as much but definitely some movement. Look for yourself..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They are indeed. For instance, the "eyewitness" never said no one was in the museum. Rather, she said no one was in the gallery. There are other rooms and galleries within the building where there would have been foot traffic. And even if the place was closed, she was there, and presumably she wasn't the only one. If that's too complex for you, I'll make it plain: the vibrations causing the movement could have come from other rooms in the museum.

If you had read the entire post, you would have known that. But, as you say, details...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah, if only you would take your own advice. People here wouldn't think of you as a child and as a useless troll.

Oh well.

 

I'm not so sure about that. It seems to be in the same position in the morning as the night before. The time delay is one minute, I believe. It's almost as if the spinning was due to... I don't know, the movement of the people walking by?

 

But, magic!

 

On a serious note, MR, since you've got such a mind for the mysterious, why don't you try your hand at fiction? You certainly have the imagination for it.

 

Yeaaaahh...I'm not feeling that. Vibrations from different parts of the building just wouldn't be strong enough.

 

Nope..it definitely moves at night too. Watch the base of the statue. Ofcourse when it turns completely around it quits moving altogether both day and night. I guess the magical vibrations only work on the statue while facing forward.

 

And how did you come to that conclusion?

 

Distance attenuates the amplitude of vibrations. I thought this was basic physics. Guess not..

 

That's not an answer to my question. I asked how you came to the conclusion that vibrations from different parts of the building just wouldn't be strong enough. What calculations did you use? Do you know the floorplan? How far away are other popular galleries? Did you measure any of that? Or did you just dismiss it because it isn't magic?

 

You prove there are vibrations coming from other rooms in the building first and how they move this sole object in such a way that it always spins around and then stops. Remember, it is you who are claiming to know the cause of this, not me. I'm saying we don't know yet.

 

No, everyone knows vibrations aren't limited to one room. I live in an apartment complex, and vibrations from people running up and down the stairs shake my living room every day. The door closes with a slam in my apartment or the one beside mine, and the plates in my cabinets rattle. You're claiming that this doesn't occur because any potential vibrations are too weak. This is not a claim of "we don't know yet," this is a positive and extraordinary claim. You need to show how you arrived at that conclusion, aside from your obvious desire for the movement to be of supernatural origin.

As to how such a vibrations can lead to that movement, and how the statue could rotate in such a way, it's already been explained to you here and here. The second link even shows you an example of such vibrations causing exactly that kind of rotational movement in a similar object, and the video in this post shows you how it happens in other situations.

The timelapse video shows clearly that the object moves during the course of the day while there is heavy foot traffic, and either not at all or only a little at night when there is little to no foot traffic. Occam's Razor works lovely here, as it dictates the simplest answer is the best: The movement is caused by the vibrations from foot traffic in the gallery and museum.

Also, the previously linked thread gives other examples of museum objects "walking" in their cases. This isn't a new phenomenon by any stretch.

 

I knew you had no proof. You know absolutely nothing about the building or how much it vibrates. All are just speculations based on sciency rhetoric and videos of vibrated objects shaken forcefully by hand. We KNOW vibrations move objects.That's not under question. The question is are they doing it in this case. And noone here knows the answer to that. We just have to wait and see what the actual researchers turn up.

 

Maybe Mythbusters will come to the rescue...

 

Proof of what? The museum has more than one room that people visit = Fact. Vibrations from foot traffic have caused objects to move in other museums = Fact. Video shows highest (or only) rate of movement of object during day when foot traffic is heavy, and little (or none) at night, when foot traffic is light (or non-existent) = Fact.

Care to explain how vibration isn't the most likely explanation? Oh, right, because vibrations from other rooms wouldn't be strong enough to affect the statue. I'd ask you again to explain how you know that, but you'd just refuse to again because you know you can't.

Same goes for you, yet you had no problem saying this:

Vibrations from different parts of the building just wouldn't be strong enough.​

:shrug:

If by "sciency rhetoric," you mean things you don't understand, then there's been plenty of that. However, this is your failing, not anyone else's. The rhetoric you refer to is an explanation of what most likely caused the object to rotate, nothing more and nothing less. The videos you refer to are proofs of concept, demonstrating how vibrations move similar objects in similar ways when employing the theorized cause. Again, it's up to you to show how this isn't the most likely scenario. Everyone else has done their job.

Then why are you so sure they didn't do the same here? And before you lie again, let me remind you that you've said more than once that this is not the cause, and even gone so far as to mock the vibration theory as "magical."

And the answer is most likely yes.

No, we do. You just don't want to admit it, because it destroys your theory that it's supernatural in origin.

Are you actually expecting some in-depth investigation here? It's no secret what caused it; it's happened before in other museums. And in any event, people who are qualified to make such judgments already have. You've simply dismissed them because they don't align with your supernatural explanation.

 

Maybe so. If Professor Ballyhoo doesn't announce to the world first his own indisputable findings based on his vibrating apartment and a video of some guy violently shaking stuff around on a piece of glass. lol!

 

In other words, you can't answer any of my questions.

Typical.

 

Almost the 20th post, phew