Mummy statue spins inside museum case, any ideas?

[Scootalove 10,689]

It would have to be from vibrations from anything that can cause objects to start to move or spin. Seismic evidence could probably prove why, vibrations from the Earth or anything that can move objects could have caused the statue to spin.

[BronyPony 575]

Easy. Just because the statue has been in the museum for that time doesn't mean it was in that specific display case for that time. In fact, most museums usually move the displays around on semi-regular basis to keep things 'fresh'. Especially 100% glass cases like that one, which need to be taken apart and cleaned once a year, according to a friend I know who's a curator at a local museum. All it would take would be shifting the case an inch in one direction over another to cause a minor slope change in the shelves.

But after each frequent change in area after cleansing should show similar results then. One out of a hundred specific locations in a glass casing is highly unlikely in a circumstance such as this, though nothing is theoretically impossible.

It would have to be from vibrations from anything that can cause objects to start to move or spin. Seismic evidence could probably prove why, vibrations from the Earth or anything that can move objects could have caused the statue to spin.

It would be odd if Seismic activity occurred that frequently, especially in the location of the museum. Also, why haven't the other statues carried out the same event?

[Scootalove 10,689]

But after each frequent change in area after cleansing should show similar results then. One out of a hundred specific locations in a glass casing is highly unlikely in a circumstance such as this, though nothing is theoretically impossible.

It would be odd if Seismic activity occurred that frequently, especially in the location of the museum. Also, why haven't the other statues carried out the same event?

I think that it only occurs in a specific location in the museum. Usually seismic activity, are pretty low depending on what area that the seismic activity occurred in.

[Grtxkkyz 388]

The vibration theory is the most likely,though i have to agree with Sir Therodar too...Pretty interesting indeed.Anyway,i hope more future investigations shed more light on this

[BronyPony 575]

I think that it only occurs in a specific location in the museum. Usually seismic activity, are pretty low depending on what area that the seismic activity occurred in.

With Seismic activity, there are usually multiple areas of impact, not just one. Though it is not ruled out, there would have to be evidence based on the statues located next to the moving statue.

[Fhaolan 4,483]

But after each frequent change in area after cleansing should show similar results then. One out of a hundred specific locations in a glass casing is highly unlikely in a circumstance such as this, though nothing is theoretically impossible.

It would be odd if Seismic activity occurred that frequently, especially in the location of the museum. Also, why haven't the other statues carried out the same event?

 

We don't know how it was displayed before. It might have actually been in the same case in the same position, in which case my theory is wrong. But I doubt the museum will be willing to tell anyone if this is the first time it's been in a glass shelf display case. If it's been there for 80 years, likely it was on a wood shelf previously, or a pedestal display.

[Scootalove 10,689]

With Seismic activity, there are usually multiple areas of impact, not just one. Though it is not ruled out, there would have to be evidence based on the statues located next to the moving statue.

Your definitely right. Sorry, I have been a bit rusty when it comes to Seismic activity since it has been a while when I learned it.

[BronyPony 575]

We don't know how it was displayed before. It might have actually been in the same case in the same position, in which case my theory is wrong. But I doubt the museum will be willing to tell anyone if this is the first time it's been in a glass shelf display case. If it's been there for 80 years, likely it was on a wood shelf previously, or a pedestal display.

The case still holds. Though I would agree that different materials show different frictional factors, it is unlikely that it would move like this for the first time(however we assume it is the first time it happened).

Your definitely right. Sorry, I have been a bit rusty when it comes to Seismic activity since it has been a while when I learned it.

No worries. This is a discussion of the theoretical. We are to carry out this investigation scientifically. Nothing is ruled out. 

 

EDIT: By theoretical I mean the multitudes of ideas that can be the truth of the event based on facts and observation.

Edited June 25, 2013 by BronyPony

[Fhaolan 4,483]

The case still holds. Though I would agree that different materials show different frictional factors, it is unlikely that it would move like this for the first time(however we assume it is the first time it happened).

 

 

The different frictional factors makes a huge difference, simply because how slowly it rotates now. According to that video it takes three-four *days* to rotate to it's resting position. If the frictional factors were higher, the speed of rotation would be so low that it would take several weeks to reach the resting point. Any movement would be written off and adjusted back to 'normal' whenever it got dusted, in the same way pictures hung on the wall get fractionally adjusted in the same timeframe. For all we know this thing's been rotating ever since it got dumped in the museum, but the cleaning staffs' been putting it back to normal every day and just writing it off as normal movement like all the other things that get jiggled around. Heck, I bet you that people only noticed this after a budget cut reduced the cleaning staff so that it only gets dusted once a week.

 

Plus, since it does end up at that resting position and stops moving at that point, it's possible that in previous locations it wasn't as far off of the rest position. We don't know, because we have no information as to prior displays, cleaning rotas, anything useful to nail it down. And it's not in the museum's interest to actually solve the mystery as it brings in punters.

[BronyPony 575]

The different frictional factors makes a huge difference, simply because how slowly it rotates now. According to that video it takes three-four *days* to rotate to it's resting position. If the frictional factors were higher, the speed of rotation would be so low that it would take several weeks to reach the resting point. Any movement would be written off and adjusted back to 'normal' whenever it got dusted, in the same way pictures hung on the wall get fractionally adjusted in the same timeframe. For all we know this thing's been rotating ever since it got dumped in the museum, but the cleaning staffs' been putting it back to normal every day and just writing it off as normal movement like all the other things that get jiggled around. Heck, I bet you that people only noticed this after a budget cut reduced the cleaning staff so that it only gets dusted once a week.

 

Plus, since it does end up at that resting position and stops moving at that point, it's possible that in previous locations it wasn't as far off of the rest position. We don't know, because we have no information as to prior displays, cleaning rotas, anything useful to nail it down. And it's not in the museum's interest to actually solve the mystery as it brings in punters.

Different locations would have to be tested in order to prove this point, but I don't think a museum would try to get the attention this way. The museum's credibility would dwindle at a cost they wouldn't be willing to take.

[--Thunder Bolt-- 534]

The mummy statue has been in the museum for over 80 years, why would the vibrations from people walking or an uneven base cause it to start moving now?  

 

That particular glass case does not look like it has been in the museum for 80 years.  The vibration hypothesis has to do with how the flooring would translate vibrational energies from the feet of the people to the glass case and the statue.  If the current case is relatively new (and unexplained rotation is not some property of the statue), that would explain why it is not famous as The Spinning Statue of Neb Senu.  I can't tell for sure, but it looks like the room has a hardwood floor.  If so, that would increase the plausibility of the vibration hypothesis.  Hardwood floors are good for absorbing and translating vibrations, which is why they're used for dance studios (easier on the dancers' feet).  If the floor is 80+ years old, it might be loose and creaky, translating even more energy, the way a waterbed will translate more energy from a dropped bowling ball than a stiff mattress.

 

A quick Google search produced this:

 

http://www.livescience.com/37678-ancient-egyptian-statue-moves-on-its-own.html

[Fhaolan 4,483]

Different locations would have to be tested in order to prove this point, but I don't think a museum would try to get the attention this way. The museum's credibility would dwindle at a cost they wouldn't be willing to take.

 

Depends on the museum, and the current board of directors & curators. People are people.

 

Given that there are a lot of big museums who still display young noble children's parade armor as if they're adult combat armor, and have giant execution swords labeled as combat blades, my level of respect for museum curators isn't automatically high. I don't assume they know what they are doing, until I actually see what they've done.  

[BronyPony 575]

That particular glass case does not look like it has been in the museum for 80 years.  The vibration hypothesis has to do with how the flooring would translate vibrational energies from the feet of the people to the glass case and the statue.  If the current case is relatively new (and unexplained rotation is not some property of the statue), that would explain why it is not famous as The Spinning Statue of Neb Senu.  I can't tell for sure, but it looks like the room has a hardwood floor.  If so, that would increase the plausibility of the vibration hypothesis.  Hardwood floors are good for absorbing and translating vibrations, which is why they're used for dance studios (easier on the dancers' feet).  If the floor is 80+ years old, it might be loose and creaky, translating even more energy, the way a waterbed will translate more energy from a dropped bowling ball than a stiff mattress.

 

A quick Google search produced this:

 

http://www.livescience.com/37678-ancient-egyptian-statue-moves-on-its-own.html

Their explanation of the event reminds me of this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5iRcZ9PxVM

 

It would be taking much force to create that much vibration, enough to cause a rotation as such though it is still possible.

 

EDIT: Disregard the title of that video, that is not the point xD.

Edited June 25, 2013 by BronyPony