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

[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."





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.




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.




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.





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.