Rolling Rocks in Death Valley

Originally posted by Gemwolf
I was quite surprised when I didn't find a single thread on the mysterious moving rocks in Racetrack Playa in Death Valley (unless I still don't have the hang of the ATS search facility...)

You should be surprised:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In one of those threads there are some very good possible physical explanations for this. Some one in this thread said that wind and rain are not sufficient to move these rocks. That's simply not true. The friction reductions that takes place when the clay of the ground is hydrated is significant. In addition, clay has an extreme yield point which means, unlike your basic mud, the rocks are going to tend to want to slide across the clay instead of sink into it (it would take more force to sink than to just blow sideways).

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Gemwolf
I was quite surprised when I didn't find a single thread on the mysterious moving rocks in Racetrack Playa in Death Valley (unless I still don't have the hang of the ATS search facility...)

You should be surprised:
...

In one of those threads there are some very good possible physical explanations for this. Some one in this thread said that wind and rain are not sufficient to move these rocks. That's simply not true. The friction reductions that takes place when the clay of the ground is hydrated is significant. In addition, clay has an extreme yield point which means, unlike your basic mud, the rocks are going to tend to want to slide across the clay instead of sink into it (it would take more force to sink than to just blow sideways).

*** Blush ***
Yes, TheBandit795 already pointed out my lack of skill with the infamous ATS search engine. I did try. Really!

For the rest of your post, I did indeed cover most reasons as to why the rain/water/wind/ice theories are or aren't plausible. Not even scientists who studied this phenomenon can agree on if it possible or not. Thus I was hoping for some other ideas and theories we could test. You know, thinking outside the box...

Originally posted by Gemwolf
Indeed. But if they are in the same proximity where one rock is moved by an obvious powerful force, then - if they are close enough to each other - both rocks should be subjected to the same force, right? Shape does not necessarily make any difference, because the theory states that the surface becomes slippery enough for the wind to move the rocks. Now this has nothing to do with the shape of the rock.

Take a knife, try cut a piece of meat with the blade. It should cut, right? Now turn the knife so it's on its side and try and cut the piece of meat. It won't cut, will it? So even though the object is exactly the same, and the forces involved are very similar, you get a similar result.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by Gemwolf
Indeed. But if they are in the same proximity where one rock is moved by an obvious powerful force, then - if they are close enough to each other - both rocks should be subjected to the same force, right? Shape does not necessarily make any difference, because the theory states that the surface becomes slippery enough for the wind to move the rocks. Now this has nothing to do with the shape of the rock.

Take a knife, try cut a piece of meat with the blade. It should cut, right? Now turn the knife so it's on its side and try and cut the piece of meat. It won't cut, will it? So even though the object is exactly the same, and the forces involved are very similar, you get a similar result.

Point taken. And a good point at that. But take a look at his, and you may understand my point better.

I'll now try my hand at image editing...



Let's take a look at these tracks. Clearly there was a force that moved the bigger rock, let's call it force A in direction A. Then the force changes. Force B in direction B. The smaller rock also has a faint track caused by force C in direction C. This means that the smaller rock is also affected by the force, i.e. it's shape doesn't prevent it from moving. BUT the smaller rock is not affected by force A nor B, which is able to move a much larger rock.


Again we have a force D moving two rocks in direction D. Interesting enough these rocks are completely different in shape, yet they clearly move parallel.
Then there's an opposing force E which moves a couple of other rocks in direction E. These two forces brings the two paths of the rocks at their closest at point X. Now clearly neither of these two tracks shows any influence from the opposing force?!

Let's say that wind is the force in question. The wind would blow in one direction, either D or E and move all the rocks in the area in that direction. Wind doesn't blow in one direction (D) and in a completely different direction (E) a few feet away!? The same goes for water. Water doesn't flow in one direction at a point and in the opposite direction a couple of feet away!?

And on the point of shapes. Take a look at rock 1 and rock 2. They are more or less different in shapes, right? Yet their paths seems to look identical. One would expect rock 2's path to be broader...

Captured on video for the first time: the mysterious forces that move rocks across the surface of Racetrack Playa in California's Death Valley. As featured on Japanese television.

www.youtube.com...

I believe this is probably the answer to one of the greatest natural mysteries of our time.

I've been to Death Valley a number of times,the average temp there in the summer is about 130 degrees,no wonder no one wants to sit and watch those rocks move,I saw the tracks they left,was good enough for me

if it was magnetic, the rocks would have ALL gathered in a cluster. and dolomite is carbon.maybe the miners in death valley put lodestone on the rocks, diffrent ammounts to help them keep track? PLZ REPLY AND COMMENT

Just a new link to a recent news story that I found interesting.

www.telegraph.co.uk...


anx.......