If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around..

[crysmileyguy!]

does it make a sound? :blink:

the question should be, does anyone give a shit :lol:

[Proper Bo]

:dabs:

[crysmileyguy!]

:dabs:
:shifty:

[ziggyjuarez]

The Fuck?

[Proper Bo]

:dabs:

[crysmileyguy!]

The Fuck?
fuck the 'question mark':naughty:

[DanB]

:dabs:

[Rip The Jacker]

I don't get this, why do millions of people use this question as a brain teaser?

Well yeah it makes a sound, your just not there to hear it. http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/images/smilies/dabs.gif

[crysmileyguy!]

I don't get this, why do millions of people use this question as a brain teaser?

Well yeah it makes a sound, your just not there to hear it. http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/images/smilies/dabs.gif


:cry: prove it

[ziggyjuarez]

I don't get this, why do millions of people use this question as a brain teaser?

Well yeah it makes a sound, your just not there to hear it. http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/images/smilies/dabs.gif


:cry: prove it
all you need is a sound recorder;)

[crysmileyguy!]

:cry: prove it
all you need is a sound recorder;)
:dry: but thats cheating. thats like saying all u need is to slowly lower the tree down on some air bags :shifty:

[RealitY]

Could you stop this is really getting to me now...

:dabs:

[Rip The Jacker]

Seriously, how the hell is that a brain teaser?

It's going to make a sound, even if no one is around... to say it doesn't make noise is pure stupid...

:dabs:

[RealitY]

It's going to make a sound, even if no one is around.
So poetic now seriously stop...

[ziggyjuarez]

aGrees with RTJ :dabs:

[Rip The Jacker]

I didn't even realize I that sentence rhymed. :P

That question sucks, trees suck, peoms suck, rhymes suck. :)

[hobbes]

Seriously, how the hell is that a brain teaser?

It's going to make a sound, even if no one is around... to say it doesn't make noise is pure stupid...

:dabs:

Actually, a "sound" is the ability to appreciate certain frequencies(vibrations) of compression and expansion of air.

For instance, a falling tree creates a frequency that your ear translates into "sound".

But, similarilarly when J2 mistakes the umbilical cord for a johnson during an ultrasound exam and starts babbling "chip off the ole block" and such, the transducer is creating vibrations that are beyond our ears ability to appreciate them. I guess that is why they call it ULTRA sound.

So yes, a wave of perceptible frequency to humans is emitted when a tree falls in the woods, but a "sound" is only heard by any being in the area able to perceive that frequency.

A deaf person would say that it makes no sound.

Do radiowaves make a sound? Only if we have a receiver able to pick them up and change the frequency into one we can appreciate. We are radio frequency deaf.

[Proper Bo]

Seriously, how the hell is that a brain teaser?

It's going to make a sound, even if no one is around... to say it doesn't make noise is pure stupid...

:dabs:
Actually, a "sound" is the ability to appreciate certain frequencies(vibrations) of compression and expansion of air.

For instance, a falling tree creates a frequency that your ear translates into "sound".

But, similarilarly when J2 mistakes the umbilical cord for a johnson during an ultrasound exam and starts babbling "chip off the ole block" and such, the transducer is creating vibrations that are beyond our ears ability to appreciate them. I guess that is why they call it ULTRA sound.

So yes, a wave of perceptible frequency to humans is emitted when a tree falls in the woods, but a "sound" is only heard by any being in the area able to perceive that frequency.

A deaf person would say that it makes no sound.

Do radiowaves make a sound? Only if we have a receiver able to pick them up and change the frequency into one we can appreciate. We are radio frequency deaf.

:glag: at chip off old block remark:lol:

[Rip The Jacker]

If the tree hits the floor, there will be a sound. Even if no one is around to hear it.

That's what I say, and I'm sticking to it. :snooty:

[RealitY]

Im getting dizzy why wont you just stop ffs...

[Rip The Jacker]

:blink:

[RealitY]

:blink:
I knew that would happen so now do you like it...

HUH!!

[JPaul]

Seriously, how the hell is that a brain teaser?

It's going to make a sound, even if no one is around... to say it doesn't make noise is pure stupid...

:dabs:

Actually, a "sound" is the ability to appreciate certain frequencies(vibrations) of compression and expansion of air.

For instance, a falling tree creates a frequency that your ear translates into "sound".

But, similarilarly when J2 mistakes the umbilical cord for a johnson during an ultrasound exam and starts babbling "chip off the ole block" and such, the transducer is creating vibrations that are beyond our ears ability to appreciate them. I guess that is why they call it ULTRA sound.

So yes, a wave of perceptible frequency to humans is emitted when a tree falls in the woods, but a "sound" is only heard by any being in the area able to perceive that frequency.

A deaf person would say that it makes no sound.

Do radiowaves make a sound? Only if we have a receiver able to pick them up and change the frequency into one we can appreciate. We are radio frequency deaf.


That's just so much pish it's inbeleivable.

Oh and it's not a "teaser" or riddle Tessco, it's a koan.

[Proper Bo]

tesco, single "s":rolleyes:

I never thought I'd see the day what I correct JP:01:

[JPaul]

tesco, single "s":rolleyes:

I never thought I'd see the day what I correct JP:01:
Oh dear, oh dear dear dear .... and you, of all people.

BTW do you know what TESCO stands for.

[Proper Bo]

low prices?

[JPaul]

low prices?
;)

A great price and a great deal more, as I remember it.

[Chewie]

Actually, a "sound" is the ability to appreciate certain frequencies(vibrations) of compression and expansion of air.

For instance, a falling tree creates a frequency that your ear translates into "sound".

But, similarilarly when J2 mistakes the umbilical cord for a johnson during an ultrasound exam and starts babbling "chip off the ole block" and such, the transducer is creating vibrations that are beyond our ears ability to appreciate them. I guess that is why they call it ULTRA sound.

So yes, a wave of perceptible frequency to humans is emitted when a tree falls in the woods, but a "sound" is only heard by any being in the area able to perceive that frequency.

A deaf person would say that it makes no sound.

Do radiowaves make a sound? Only if we have a receiver able to pick them up and change the frequency into one we can appreciate. We are radio frequency deaf.
No, what you are referring to is 'hearing'. Deaf people cannot hear. Because they cannot hear a sound does not preclude that no sound is there.

It has always amused me that people (students, mainly) debate this as if they're clever, when all they are doing is proving that they're a little green.

[Rip The Jacker]

No, what you are referring to is 'hearing'. Deaf people cannot hear. Because they cannot hear a sound does not preclude that no sound is there.

It has always amused me that people (students, mainly) debate this as if they're clever, when all they are doing is proving that they're a little green.
Exactly.

The damn sound is there, even if you aren't there to hear it. There is nothing to debate...

[JPaul]

No, what you are referring to is 'hearing'. Deaf people cannot hear. Because they cannot hear a sound does not preclude that no sound is there.

It has always amused me that people (students, mainly) debate this as if they're clever, when all they are doing is proving that they're a little green.
Exactly.

The damn sound is there, even if you aren't there to hear it. There is nothing to debate...
But it's not really about that, it's not a physics question, it's a famous Zen koan. It's something to think about and to meditate on.

How can you know anything that you do not directly experience.

Just realize, there is no spoon.

[Rip The Jacker]

Um... okay then...

[manker]

But it's not really about that, it's not a physics questionAwful that this had to be pointed out, rly.

[Mr JP Fugley]

so does it make a noise or what, does anybody know the right answer.

[Peerzyman]

so does it make a noise or what, does anybody know the right answer.STFU, thumarse.

Of course it makes a noise, as if the absence of any evidence whatsoever would stop me from making a definite assertion about an event :@ :@ :@

[Yogs]

I'm with Hobbes on this. :D

And i live in the woods.:shifty:

[Mr JP Fugley]

I'm with Hobbes on this. :D


thanks for that, we now have definitive proof he is talking pish.

[Mr JP Fugley]

so does it make a noise or what, does anybody know the right answer.STFU, thumarse.

Of course it makes a noise, as if the absence of any evidence whatsoever would stop me from making a definite assertion about an event :@ :@ :@
so that's a no then.

[Chewie]

Exactly.

The damn sound is there, even if you aren't there to hear it. There is nothing to debate...
But it's not really about that, it's not a physics question, it's a famous Zen koan. It's something to think about and to meditate on.

How can you know anything that you do not directly experience.

Just realize, there is no spoon.
LOL

When I say 'a little green' I do, of course, mean that they're gullible enough to argue that this is a question worth mulling over.
There are some questions which we can certainly rely on experience to answer. This is one of them. The question makes no mention of vacuum. :)

A more pertinent question:
Why do people waste valuable internet time wondering if a falling tree makes no sound if there's no-one there?

[Yogs]

A more pertinent question:
Why do people waste valuable internet time wondering if a falling tree makes no sound if there's no-one there?

:blink:


You must be paying too much for your connection.......;)

[thewizeard]

I believe you are presuming, that only humans can hear...Other creatures can too..

[manker]

I believe you are presuming, that only humans can hear...Other creatures can too..Bloody hell, mate. You don't half post some pish.

[Aaron_T]

the best thread ever by crysmileyguy :01:

[thewizeard]

I believe you are presuming, that only humans can hear...Other creatures can too..Bloody hell, mate. You don't half post some pish. Yes, I have been doing it for years now, I doubt if I am capable of changing now...

edit: and luckily, for you, about 2000 post vanished with the change to VB software...

[manker]

Bloody hell, mate. You don't half post some pish. Yes, I have been doing it for years now, I doubt if I am capable of changing now...

edit: and luckily, for you, about 2000 post vanished with the change to VB software...Luckily for me :blink:

In what way, pray tell.

[thewizeard]

..less pish for you to read...

[manker]

..less pish for you to read...Ohhh.

You appear to be under the misaprehension that the change to VB software from IPB compelled me to read the entire archive of forum posts.

[thewizeard]

Oh right, that's indeed what I thought, thanks for correcting me :P

[manker]

It's my forté :happy:

[thewizeard]

...only one of them, you have many.. :)

[manker]

:o

Now I feel bad for being an ar5e.

[crysmileyguy!]

I didn't even realize I that sentence rhymed. :P

That question sucks, trees suck, peoms suck, rhymes suck. :)

do u suck? :naughty:

[j2k4]

As an aside, I've submitted the ultra-sounds to Busyman, and he is happy to confirm the appendage is indeed a "Johnson" (he's an expert). ;)

Hobbes-

The plane of my existence is "ultra" in every way, which you already knew.

If you'd turn around occasionally you'd see me waving at you, snob. :P

On the question in question, I'd think the dilemma could be solved for once and all by dispatching a non-entity to roam the wood at issue until a tree falls, with instructions to report whatever finding presents.

We can stay here and chat while this goes on, you see.

[Cheese]

There is no tree until someone sees it.

[j2k4]

There is no tree until someone sees it.

A non-entity with eyes, of course. :rolleyes:

[Virtualbody1234]

When you're there to hear it it, makes a crashing sound. When no one's there, it makes a sucking sound.

[manker]

When you're there to hear it, it makes a crashing sound. When no one's there, it makes a sucking sound.Have you been overclocking your vacuum cleaner for 'personal reasons', again :smilie4:

[enoughfakefiles]

There is no tree until someone sees it.

Cheese=neo

[Neocheese]

There is no tree until someone sees it.

Cheese=neo

:happy:

[j2k4]

When you're there to hear it it, makes a crashing sound. When no one's there, it makes a sucking sound.

Ah, has the entity reported back ,then? :P

BTW-

Hardwareworld appears to have spring a leak; be a good lad and tell a mod if you see one?:huh:

[Virtualbody1234]

Hardwareworld appears to have spring a leak; be a good lad and tell a mod if you see one?:huh:
I'm not there to see it. ;)

[j2k4]

Hardwareworld appears to have spring a leak; be a good lad and tell a mod if you see one?:huh:
I'm not there to see it. ;)

Our secret, then. ;)

[manker]

Hardwareworld appears to have spring a leakAre you trying to tempt me out of my retirement from pedantry :smilie4:

[vidcc]

If a woman says something and there isn't a man around to hear her say it.........




Is she still wrong :unsure:

[manker]

Women? Wrong?

Not in your house.

[clocker]

BTW-

Hardwareworld appears to have spring a leak; be a good lad and tell a mod if you see one?:huh:
No leak.
What you see is a planned maintenance operation...simply washing down the floors and hosing out the shit.
Done not in the spring, rather, in true l33t fashion, when it is dark and freezing cold (where else but HW world would you see threads w00ting about the freezing temps in a bedroom cause "my PC is lovin it!"?).
Since crap flows downhill you can expect a flood of poop (and probably a Renault too as it turns out) to flow here momentarily.

Were I you, I'd contact FEMA right away.

[manker]

W00t used as a verb - you're a veritable linguistic pioneer, clocker :01:

[j2k4]

Were I you, I'd contact FEMA right away.

I've contracted with that Miller character's outfit for a consult first.:lol:

[j2k4]

W00t used as a verb - you're a veritable linguistic pioneer, clocker :01:

Quite right.

That's the kind of linguistic flexibility I can countenance.:)

[clocker]

W00t used as a verb - you're a veritable linguistic pioneer, clocker :01:
One tries.:blushing:

Quite right.

That's the kind of linguistic flexibility I can countenance.
Awesome!

Majorly.

[crysmileyguy!]

stop high jacking my topic u cryco wannabes! :cry:

talk about the tree or cryoff :cry:

[j2k4]

Trees.

Awesome!

[hobbes]

No, what you are referring to is 'hearing'. Deaf people cannot hear. Because they cannot hear a sound does not preclude that no sound is there.

It has always amused me that people (students, mainly) debate this as if they're clever, when all they are doing is proving that they're a little green.

There is no such thing as "sound", it is a perception.

Does a dog whistle make a sound?

Audible sound is a very narrow band of "frequencies". The width of this band varies from species to species. Our ears simply take the waves of compressed and expanded air and creates this concious thing called sound.

"Sound" is a physical entity meaning that it requires molecules to transmit it from a source to the target.

If the tree is in a vacuum and it falls over, you will not "hear" anything, because there is no air to compress.

So does a tree in a vacuum make sound?

What is interesting is that sound and light were originally defined as separate entities and sound was described as having a certain "frequency", while when referring to light, its properties were described in "wavelength". These labels persist today, but now we appreciate the electromagnetic spectrum.

While one frequency is perceived as "sound" another is perceived as visible light. There is no difference other than how long the wavelength is. So both sound and vision are "perceptions", not real entities.

If you were in a room of all ultraviolet light, you would perceive that it was a pitch black room. Another creature might be shielding it's eyes from the glare.

Is there "light" in the room? No, just electromagnetic energy of a certain frequency. "Light" is what you call it, when you can perceive it. Just like sound is what you call it when you can hear it.

http://www.glenair.com/qwikconnect/vol6num2/ElectroSpectrum.gif

I think my zen master would give me an F for this answer, but then again being a zen master doesn't put food on the table, grasshopper.

[j2k4]

No, what you are referring to is 'hearing'. Deaf people cannot hear. Because they cannot hear a sound does not preclude that no sound is there.

It has always amused me that people (students, mainly) debate this as if they're clever, when all they are doing is proving that they're a little green.

There is no such thing as "sound", it is a perception.

Does a dog whistle make a sound?

Audible sound is a very narrow band of "frequencies". The width of this band varies from species to species. Our ears simply take the waves of compressed and expanded air and creates this concious thing called sound.

"Sound" is a physical entity meaning that it requires molecules to transmit it from a source to the target.

If the tree is in a vacuum and it falls over, you will not "hear" anything, because there is no air to compress.

So does a tree in a vacuum make sound?

What is interesting is that sound and light were originally defined as separate entities and sound was described as having a certain "frequency", while when referring to light, its properties were described in "wavelength". These labels persist today, but now we appreciate the electromagnetic spectrum.

While one frequency is perceived as "sound" another is perceived as visible light. There is no difference other than how long the wavelength is. So both sound and vision are "perceptions", not real entities.

If you were in a room of all ultraviolet light, you would perceive that it was a pitch black room. Another creature might be shielding it's eyes from the glare.

Is there "light" in the room? No, just electromagnetic energy of a certain frequency. "Light" is what you call it, when you can perceive it. Just like sound is what you call it when you can hear it.

http://www.glenair.com/qwikconnect/vol6num2/ElectroSpectrum.gif

I think my zen master would give me an F for this answer, but then again being a zen master doesn't put food on the table, grasshopper.

Sounds like a pretty intelligent design to me. :)

[hobbes]

Sounds like a pretty intelligent design to me. :)


You can "hear" intelligent design?

[Mr JP Fugley]

Sound is "Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing."

It is also " The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium"

The first and most commonly used one is the former. It is certainly the more commonly used one in the field of physics.

To say that sound is only a perception is like saying waves in the sea are only waves because they can be seen, it's just pish.

[Mr JP Fugley]

"What is interesting is that sound and light were originally defined as separate entities and sound was described as having a certain "frequency", while when referring to light, its properties were described in "wavelength". These labels persist today, but now we appreciate the electromagnetic spectrum."

What in the name of fuck does the electromagnetic spectrum have to do with sound.

"While one frequency is perceived as "sound" another is perceived as visible light. There is no difference other than how long the wavelength is."

What does that mean, you jump from frequency to wavelength.

"So both sound and vision are "perceptions", not real entities."

What about the duality of light, you know "photons" and so forth,

[hobbes]

Sound is "Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing."

It is also " The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium"

The first and most commonly used one is the former. It is certainly the more commonly used one in the field of physics.

To say that sound is only a perception is like saying waves in the sea are only waves because they can be seen, it's just pish.


"Sound" is a what we call specific wavelengths which we can perceive. As I clearly stated, it is a physical transmission of certain frequencies.

Does a dog whistle make a "sound"? Well, it actually just causes the air around it to be compressed at a certain frequency which passes through the atmosphere. If you cannot hear it, do you call it a sound. No "sound" is a label the common man uses to express data he receives from the environment and is restricted by our ability perceive.

The abilty to perceive is limited to a certain narrow spectrum of frequencies.

Why do you call one frequncy "sound" and another "radio waves". It is an arbitrary distinction made from a humans ability to perceive. The only thing that is real is the bands of compressed and expanded air.

Television and radio transmissions are everywhere, can you "hear" them or "see" them? No, you need a receiver which can convert these transmissions into frequencies you can see and hear.

Our world is full of transmitted waves of all different frequencies, if we could perceive them all, it would be deafening/blinding. The ones we can perceive, we call "sound".

[Mr JP Fugley]

Sound is "Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing."

It is also " The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium"

The first and most commonly used one is the former. It is certainly the more commonly used one in the field of physics.

To say that sound is only a perception is like saying waves in the sea are only waves because they can be seen, it's just pish.


"Sound" is a what we call specific wavelengths which we can perceive. As I clearly stated, it is a physical transmission of certain frequencies.

Does a dog whistle make a "sound"? Well, it actually just causes the air around it to be compressed at a certain frequency which passes through the atmosphere. If you cannot hear it, do you call it a sound. No "sound" is a label the common man uses to express data he receives from the environment and is restricted by our ability perceive.

The abilty to perceive is limited to a certain narrow spectrum of frequencies.

Why do you call one frequncy "sound" and another "radio waves". It is an arbitrary distinction made from a humans ability to perceive. The only thing that is real is the bands of compressed and expanded air.

Television and radio transmissions are everywhere, can you "hear" them or "see" them? No, you need a receiver which can convert these transmissions into frequencies you can see and hear.

Our world is full of transmitted waves of all different frequencies, if we could perceive them all, it would be deafening/blinding. The ones we can perceive, we call "sound".


Your talking pish again, you jump from frequency to wavelength and back. You say things like "Why do you call one frequncy "sound" and another "radio waves". It is an arbitrary distinction made from a humans ability to perceive. The only thing that is real is the bands of compressed and expanded air."

Radio waves are electromagnetic radiation, soundwaves are physical, they are entirely diferent. Guess how they can talk to chaps in space, coz they don't use sound waves they use radio waves. The distinction is anything but arbitrary

Sound is not a part of the electromagnetic spectrum, it is the transfer of energy, through a physical medium. That range is wider than we can perceive, so we call the bit we can perceive "sound".

It's still sound whether someone hears or not.

[hobbes]

"What is interesting is that sound and light were originally defined as separate entities and sound was described as having a certain "frequency", while when referring to light, its properties were described in "wavelength". These labels persist today, but now we appreciate the electromagnetic spectrum."

What in the name of fuck does the electromagnetic spectrum have to do with sound.

"While one frequency is perceived as "sound" another is perceived as visible light. There is no difference other than how long the wavelength is."

What does that mean, you jump from frequency to wavelength.

"So both sound and vision are "perceptions", not real entities.
What about the duality of light, you know "photons" and so forth,

"Sound" and "vision" are the labels we put on real entities and these labels are used by our ability to perceive.

There are no absolute entities called "sounds", that is just a label we place on a certain range of frequencies.


Jumping from frequency to wavelength is a historic term. Different fields of science were investigating different entities. One group studying sound/radiowaves found it useful to describe something as having a certain frequency. Another group was studying "light/uv/xray" and described these as having a certain "wavelength". Then it dawned on them that light and sound weren't different entities, but just occupied different areas of this thing called the electromagnetic frequency spectrum.

wavelength= speed/frequency

The label of describing radiowaves in hertz(frequency) and light waves in nanometers (wavelength) is remnant of this history.

[hobbes]

Me:
"Sound" is a what we call specific wavelengths which we can perceive. As I clearly stated, it is a physical transmission of certain frequencies.

You:[/COLOR]
It is the transfer of energy, through a physical medium. That range is wider than we can perceive, so we call the bit we can perceive "sound".




What is the argument?

[enoughfakefiles]

/moved to the drawingroom

[Mr JP Fugley]

"What is interesting is that sound and light were originally defined as separate entities and sound was described as having a certain "frequency", while when referring to light, its properties were described in "wavelength". These labels persist today, but now we appreciate the electromagnetic spectrum."

What in the name of fuck does the electromagnetic spectrum have to do with sound.

"While one frequency is perceived as "sound" another is perceived as visible light. There is no difference other than how long the wavelength is."

What does that mean, you jump from frequency to wavelength.

"So both sound and vision are "perceptions", not real entities.
What about the duality of light, you know "photons" and so forth,

"Sound" and "vision" are the labels we put on real entities and these labels are used by our ability to perceive.

There are no absolute entities called "sounds", that is just a label we place on a certain range of frequencies.


Jumping from frequency to wavelength is a historic term. Different fields of science were investigating different entities. One group studying sound/radiowaves found it useful to describe something as having a certain frequency. Another group was studying "light/uv/xray" and described these as having a certain "wavelength". Then it dawned on them that light and sound weren't different entities, but just occupied different areas of this thing called the electromagnetic frequency spectrum.

wavelength= speed/frequency

The label of describing radiowaves in hertz(frequency) and light waves in nanometers (wavelength) is remnant of this history.


have you actually gone mad, because that's what it looks like.

"Then it dawned on them that light and sound weren't different entities, but just occupied different areas of this thing called the electromagnetic frequency spectrum."

http://www.lbl.gov/images/MicroWorlds/EMSpec.gif



sound is not there, coz it's not electromagnetic.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Me:
"Sound" is a what we call specific wavelengths which we can perceive. As I clearly stated, it is a physical transmission of certain frequencies.

You:[/COLOR]
It is the transfer of energy, through a physical medium. That range is wider than we can perceive, so we call the bit we can perceive "sound".




What is the argument?
well firstly, see my last

and b, you said that sound did not exist in it's own right, that sound was us perceiving things.

[j2k4]

Sounds like a pretty intelligent design to me. :)


You can "hear" intelligent design?

I can deduce intelligent design, and I do so in this instance.

[hobbes]

What is the argument?
well firstly, see my last

and b, you said that sound did not exist in it's own right, that sound was us perceiving things.

Sound and light both have energy. The amount of energy is related to the frequency times the wavelength.

Light has a much higher energy than sound because it travels at the speed of light, wheras sound is propagated much more slowly and its frequency lives to the left of your chart.

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/WavelengthFrequencyMedium.jpg


There is no such things as a "sound", that is a perception of an external stimulus. It is what we call a medium that is compressed at a certain frequency.

The frequency of an ultrasound transducer is not audible to us, but it is a physical wave propagated through a medium, just like what we call "sound".

If I could "hear" it then I would call it sound, but since I cannot, I do not call it sound. The distinction of what is called a "sound" and what is not is based on our ability to perceive it, not on some absolute quality.

In another world the frequency of visible light might evoke the perception of "sound" to that being.

[j2k4]

well firstly, see my last

and b, you said that sound did not exist in it's own right, that sound was us perceiving things.

Sound and light both have energy. The amount of energy is related to the frequency times the wavelength.

Light has a much higher energy than sound because it travels at the speed of light, wheras sound is propagated much more slowly and its frequency lives to the left of your chart.

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/WavelengthFrequencyMedium.jpg


There is no such things as a "sound", that is a perception of an external stimulus. It is what we call a medium that is compressed at a certain frequency.

The frequency of an ultrasound transducer is not audible to us, but it is a physical wave propagated through a medium, just like what we call "sound".

If I could "hear" it then I would call it sound, but since I cannot, I do not call it sound. The distinction of what is called a "sound" and what is not is based on our ability to perceive it, not on some absolute quality.

In another world the frequency of visible light might evoke the perception of "sound" to that being.


Sold!

[JPaul]

Sound and light both have energy. The amount of energy is related to the frequency times the wavelength.

So, sound is still not electromagnetic in nature.

Light has a much higher energy than sound because it travels at the speed of light, wheras sound is propagated much more slowly and its frequency lives to the left of your chart.


Of course it lives to the left of the chart, because the chart you posted is electromagnetic and then some, it has nothing to do with the point.


http://www.sengpielaudio.com/WavelengthFrequencyMedium.jpg


There is no such things as a "sound", that is a perception of an external stimulus. It is what we call a medium that is compressed at a certain frequency.

Semantics and incorrect at that. "Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing." "capable of being detected", not "a perception which is the result of external stimulii"

The frequency of an ultrasound transducer is not audible to us, but it is a physical wave propagated through a medium, just like what we call "sound".

Specious

If I could "hear" it then I would call it sound, but since I cannot, I do not call it sound. The distinction of what is called a "sound" and what is not is based on our ability to perceive it, not on some absolute quality.

"If I could hear it .. " exactly, the point is whether it is capable of being heard.

In another world the frequency of visible light might evoke the perception of "sound" to that being.

Thanks for that, so fuck



Sold!

Bought a pup then

[manker]

You could have at least made the colours relevant, Roy G. Biv.

[JPaul]

You could have at least made the colours relevant, Roy G. Biv.
I'm a free spirit.

I still feel uncomfortable about split infinitives btw.

[manker]

You could have at least made the colours relevant, Roy G. Biv.
I'm a free spirit.

I still feel uncomfortable about split infinitives btw.That's because you're old skool, old boy.

What we ought to do is wait til someone posts one, preferably a barely literate foreigner, and have a wee chat about it in a condescending manner.

You know it makes sense.

[hobbes]

You could have at least made the colours relevant, Roy G. Biv.
I'm a free spirit.

I still feel uncomfortable about split infinitives btw.

Splitting infinitives = uncomfortable

Splitting hairs = snug as a bug in a rug.

Thanks for that fuck.

This thread brought to you by the word "specious". Just say it and it is so.

[manker]

This thread brought to you by the word "specious". Just say it and it is so.I've noticed JP hardly uses the word specious, unless it's directed at you. With the abundance of speciousity evident in almost all quarters of this forum; there is only one conclusion that can be drawn.

That conclusion is definitely not that your posts are specious, btw :smilie4:

[JPaul]

I'm a free spirit.

I still feel uncomfortable about split infinitives btw.

Splitting infinitives = uncomfortable

Splitting hairs = snug as a bug in a rug.

Thanks for that fuck.

This thread brought to you by the word "specious". Just say it and it is so.
You were still talking pish.

Pish wrapped up in fancy dan words is still pish.

[manker]

/me flounces

[JPaul]

/me flounces
Only when on t'Babycham tho'.

[manker]

/me flounces
Only when on t'Babycham tho'.9 B4 9, matey :snooty:

I'd loike to see you - or any of your kith and kin - perform that feet.

[JPaul]

Only when on t'Babycham tho'.9 B4 9, matey :snooty:

I'd loike to see you - or any of your kith and kin - perform that feet.
I couldn't even try it, I do however have a 7 year old daughter who may be up to the challenge.

[hobbes]

Splitting infinitives = uncomfortable

Splitting hairs = snug as a bug in a rug.

Thanks for that fuck.

This thread brought to you by the word "specious". Just say it and it is so.
You were still talking pish.

Pish wrapped up in fancy dan words is still pish.

specious

[JPaul]

You were still talking pish.

Pish wrapped up in fancy dan words is still pish.

specious

I put a lot of work into it.

[manker]

9 B4 9, matey :snooty:

I'd loike to see you - or any of your kith and kin - perform that feet.
I couldn't even try it, I do however have a 7 year old daughter who may be up to the challenge.You don't wean your weans on Asda Apple, Shirley.

[JPaul]

I couldn't even try it, I do however have a 7 year old daughter who may be up to the challenge.You don't wean your weans on Asda Apple, Shirley.
What else would I use :blink:

Is wee manlet enjoying his pureed lava bread btw.

[manker]

You don't wean your weans on Asda Apple, Shirley.
What else would I use :blink:

Is wee manlet enjoying his pureed lava bread btw.Indeed, he polishes it off quicker than your average teenager.


Edit: The, err, lavabread, I mean :dabs:

[JPaul]

What else would I use :blink:

Is wee manlet enjoying his pureed lava bread btw.Indeed, he polishes it off quicker than your average teenager.


Edit: The, err, lavabread, I mean :dabs:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :irl:

Double Entendre ftw.

[Biggles]

I have often looked upon ancient places and wondered what ears heard the waves crash on the shoreline or heard the strains of ropes and wood as monoliths were raised to mark time and tide.

I am of the view that the science and the philosophy discussed here are talking at cross purposes.

Of course the components that go to make up the experience we call sound are in the forest when the tree falls - regardless. The meaning we give to sound will equally obviously be absent if there is no one there to translate that experience and give it meaning.

The object of the exercise is to understand the meaning of experience not the nature of sound. It was not intended to be a philosophical parlour game - although it has to be said this particular question seems a perennial favourite of undergraduates .... usually after several beers and a large lentil curry :)

[clocker]

I have often looked upon ancient places and wondered what ears heard the waves crash on the shoreline or heard the strains of ropes and wood as monoliths were raised to mark time and tide.

I am of the view that the science and the philosophy discussed here are talking at cross purposes.

Oh there you go again bringing poetry and logic to the table.
Ruined the whole thing, did you.*

BTW, your Temp Taper Fade is lookin a bit alreet, Skeet.
Not as l33t as mine, but passable.


*Still channeling Yoda...not sure why.

[Barbarossa]

/me thinks


:blink:

/moved to wtfworld. :dabs:

Hobbes talks some sense, but sort of spoiled it for me when he said sound = light. :(

Everyone else talks pish. :sly:

It's a philosophical question, but if we can't agree on a definition of sound, then we can't reach a consensus. Personally, I think it makes a sound, because it causes the compressions in the air that we can detect as sound.. Just because there is nobody there to detect them, doesn't mean the sound does not exist...

However, this is entirely based on my definition of sound... (which I know differs from Hobbes')

[JPaul]

but if we can't agree on a definition of sound, then we can't reach a consensus.
Why would we have to agree a definition of sound, it's already been defined.

[Cheese]

Vin Diesel would hear the tree, no matter where he was at the time.

[j2k4]

but if we can't agree on a definition of sound, then we can't reach a consensus.
Why would we have to agree a definition of sound, it's already been defined.

But if Barbie desires a consensus...:huh:

[Agrajag]

Why would we have to agree a definition of sound, it's already been defined.

But if Barbie desires a consensus...:huh:
I hate the whole consensus thing, who's with me.

[j2k4]

But if Barbie desires a consensus...:huh:
I hate the whole consensus thing, who's with me.

I agree, but I'll have nothing to do with you.

[Agrajag]

I hate the whole consensus thing, who's with me.

I agree, but I'll have nothing to do with you.
That's the ticket.

[Barbarossa]

but if we can't agree on a definition of sound, then we can't reach a consensus.
Why would we have to agree a definition of sound, it's already been defined.

That's not what I heard. :huh:

[clocker]

Why would we have to agree a definition of sound, it's already been defined.

That's not what I heard. :huh:
So you were in the forest then?

[JPaul]

Why would we have to agree a definition of sound, it's already been defined.

That's not what I heard. :huh:
We really do need the :babum-dish: smillie.

[Barbarossa]

That's not what I heard. :huh:
So you were in the forest then?

I was a bear taking a shit.

Yes - I heard the bastard tree. Missed me by a whisker, and squashed my roll of "Charmin".

Had to use a bastard chipmunk to wipe again... :angry:

[Cheese]

Had to use a bastard chipmunk to wipe again... :angry:

Not hard to find though. Chipmunks are not allowed to marry in any states. Apart from Texas.

[clocker]

So you were in the forest then?

I was a bear taking a shit.

What is the ursine definition of "sound"?

[hobbes]

Talking phish about the eye is known as :

http://www.andrewlost.com/images/vision_page/rods_eye.jpg ing


Obviousmente.

[j2k4]

So you were in the forest then?

I was a bear taking a shit.

Had to use a bastard chipmunk to wipe again... :angry:

Did you kill it first, or after? :huh:

[Agrajag]

I was a bear taking a shit.

Had to use a bastard chipmunk to wipe again... :angry:

Did you kill it first, or after? :huh:
Or p'raps during.

[j2k4]

Did you kill it first, or after? :huh:
Or p'raps during.

Or that, yes.