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

[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.



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.



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?