C
calorific
Edging somewhat away from the main focus of the thread, this reminds me of one of my lecturers who posed the question "is something only a problem when it is called a problem"
If a tree falls...
- Thread starter UriBentMySpoon
- Start date
Bit like Mancunians - some cant see Red and some cant see Blue.
Reminds me of the American mixed race baseball team.
Black guys were always complaining that when they got on the bus they had to sit at the back whilst white guys sat at the front.
It went on for ages - so- one day- the team coach had had enough of all the bickering.
He got them all together - black and white players. He said to them- 'I am totally sick of all this 'black/white/white black thing'--so- from now on lets all agree- 'all of us are now 'GREEN'. 'ok- is that agreed' ?.
All the players said ''ok- we agree.
Team coach says- 'thank God for that-- so- lets all get on the bus .
DARK GREENS TO THE BACK AND LIGHT GREENS TO THE FRONT !!
Unless there is a life form, or some other method of recording"sound", then no sound is produced, only vibrations.
These vibrations must be within the human range of hearing, for you to interpret them as "sound".
Take an ultrasonic dog whistle, you don't hear any "sound" because it is outside of your hearing range.
But a dog hears "sound" because it can detect the vibrations, that your ear can't.
Therefore the whistle only produces vibrations.
These vibrations must be within the human range of hearing, for you to interpret them as "sound".
Take an ultrasonic dog whistle, you don't hear any "sound" because it is outside of your hearing range.
But a dog hears "sound" because it can detect the vibrations, that your ear can't.
Therefore the whistle only produces vibrations.
C
calorific
If one defines sound to be the waves with those particular lengths and frequencies within the carrying medium then there is sound, quite regardless of whether any other life form actually detects them.
Why did you part quote me, and ignore my reasoning.
C
calorific
Because the dog hearing "sounds" beyond our own human abilities seemed a little confused - are you suggesting that if human's can't hear this and yet a dog can then this is not "sound"? I'm not sure that this reduced range of frequencies is sufficient for a working definition- I was focusing on the concept of vibrations rather than the effect.
Trazor, IMOs correct. UV rays, forexample, can be compared to the sonc (atmospheric) waves (vibrations). They both exist. Sound is an interpretation of those waves. "seeing" or "images" are an interpretion of light waves. Therefore if nothing existed to interpret atmospheric vibrations or light waves, there would be no images or sound.
I think.
I think.
C
calorific
So if we don't observe and interpret it, it doesn't exist? So there is no dark side of the moon and indeed the earth is flat and all the celestial bodies revolve around the earth 
So if we don't observe and interpret it, it doesn't exist? So there is no dark side of the moon and indeed the earth is flat and all the celestial bodies revolve around the earth
Er, I said that the SOURCE exists. There IS a side of the moon that is not normally visible to an observer on earth, and we know (unless there is a conspiacy of the highest order) that the earyth is not flat.
C
calorific
And indeed a tree falling down creates vibrations at particular frequencies - this is what we can call "sound" quite regardless of whether there is anyone to hear it.So if we don't observe and interpret it, it doesn't exist? So there is no dark side of the moon and indeed the earth is flat and all the celestial bodies revolve around the earth
Er, I said that the SOURCE exists. There IS a side of the moon that is not normally visible to an observer on earth, and we know (unless there is a conspiacy of the highest order) that the earyth is not flat.
One shouldn't get confused between SOURCE and RECEIVER - the absence of the latter doesn't mean the non existence of the former.
One shouldn't get confused between SOURCE and RECEIVER - the absence of the latter doesn't mean the non existence of the former.[/quote]
I think you are getting there
I have said, at least twice I think, the same. You can have the SOURCE (vibrations or lght waves) WITHOUT the RECEIVER (eyes or ears) The absence of the latter does not negate the existence of the former. But without the latter you can't have the iterpreted result
I think you are getting there
I have said, at least twice I think, the same. You can have the SOURCE (vibrations or lght waves) WITHOUT the RECEIVER (eyes or ears) The absence of the latter does not negate the existence of the former. But without the latter you can't have the iterpreted result
C
calorific
Agreed, but the interpreted result is not the definition of "sound".One shouldn't get confused between SOURCE and RECEIVER - the absence of the latter doesn't mean the non existence of the former.
I think you are getting there
C
calorific
These vibrations/waves within an agreed frequency range are "sound" (in whatever medium you choose, and let's not forget tha there are other conductive media such as water). As such they exist regardless of whether you, I, a dolphin or a dog hears/interprets them.]Agreed, but the interpreted result is not the definition of "sound".
I think it is, assuming we are reffering to atmospheric vibations. How else could one define ?
