If a tree falls

Yaro writes:

quote:

---

Sound is a sensory interpretation of waves in the air.

---

Incorrect. Sound is the vibration of molecules. It doesn't require anybody to be there to hear it.By your definition, deaf people negate all sound around them since they aren't capable of hearing it. How can the exact same vibration of molecules be both sound and silence when a hearing and deaf person are present? How can the tree falling both make and not make any sound simply because there is both a hearing and a deaf person present?"Hearing" is the sensory interpretation of molecular vibration. You hear sound. But notice, those are two different things: There is a stimulus (sound) and a response (hearing). But the stimulus is not the same as the response.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

jar writes:

quote:

---

If a man speaks in the woods, and no one hears him, is he still wrong?

---

Close. It's "If a man speaks in the woods and there is no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?"

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

1.61803 writes:

quote:

---

There is only a sound if there is something to hear it.
Otherwise it is merely a disturbance of air forming waves which affect the surroundings as a pressure differential.

---

I'm confused. What is "a disturbance of air forming waves which affect the surroundings as a pressure differential" if not the definition of "sound."Sound doesn't require somebody there to hear it. HEARING requires someone (or something) to be there to detect it, but the actual sound doesn't require a detector. Sound is the vibration. Hearing is the detection of the vibration.By the same token: Did the sun shine before there was anybody there to see it? By your logic, there is no such thing as light unless there is somebody there to see it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Yaro responds to me:

quote:

---

Same with sound. The stimulus is there, but someone/something needs to interpret it to call it sound.

---

Incorrect. The stimulus is sound. There is no need for anybody or anything to be there to interpret it in order for it to be sound. The sound, by definition, is the vibration of molecules.By your logic, the sun doesn't shine unless there is somebody there to see it.

quote:

---

I think it's just a matter of what you are calling sound, the data or the interpretation

---

Indeed. And it is silly to claim that the detection of sound is sound. Detection of auditory stimuli is called "hearing," not "sound."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Funkaloyd respodns to riVeRraT:

quote:

---

Are earthquakes but very low frequency sound?

---

Sorta. Earthquakes certainly create a lot of sound since they involve the movement of large masses of molecules, slamming them against other masses.

quote:

---

Sounds are just waves which happen to be interpreted a certain way by certain observers. I don't see why something should be labeled sound if it can't be heard.

---

Because there is a difference between a stimulus and the detection of that stimulus. By your logic, the sun doesn't shine unless somebody is there to look at it. Close your eyes, and all the lights go out.Suppose there is a deaf person and a hearing person present when that tree falls. Did it make a sound? The deaf person is incapable of hearing it so by your logic, it didn't. But the hearing person can hear it so by your logic, it did. How can the falling tree both make a sound and be silent at the same time? Since it can't be both, it has to be one or the other. It can't be silent since the hearing person heard a sound. Therefore, it must have made a sound despite the fact that the deaf person didn't hear it.

quote:

---

But but what you're doing is calling a radio wave with a frequency of 1Hz "visible light", even though it cannot be percieved by any creature's eyes.

---

So by your logic, there is no such thing as radio. Since it can't be seen, it must not have been radiated.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Funkaloyd responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

By your logic, the sun doesn't shine unless somebody is there to look at it.

---

​

I don't see the problem with that. Nobody says "the Sun is shining" on a cloudy day.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Where do you think all the light is coming from on a cloudy day? The clouds?Now, try to respond to the scenario that was given you and not some strawman you created: If there is nobody to see the sun shining, does it still shine? If you close your eyes, do the lights go out? Suddenly the nuclear reactions that result in the release of photons stop releasing photons simply because you've got your eyes closed?

quote:

---

quote:

---

It can't be silent since the hearing person heard a sound. Therefore, it must have made a sound despite the fact that the deaf person didn't hear it.

---

​

Right. Only if the hearing person weren't there, then the tree didn't make much in the way of sound.

---

Incorrect. The process of the tree falling hasn't changed. Therefore any sound generated by the tree falling hasn't changed. Why does the presence of the hearing person change it? The sound was there despite the fact that the deaf person didn't hear it. So as far as the deaf person is concerned, everything is identical to what it was before. If there was a sound previously, then there must be a sound now.If you can have a sound without it being heard (the deaf person), then the answer to the question is obvious: The tree made a sound.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So by your logic, there is no such thing as radio. Since it can't be seen, it must not have been radiated.

---

​

Hah, "by my logic". Right. By your logic, gamma rays are colourful.

---

Indeed, they are. Every frequency of light has a color. We just can detect all of them with our retinas.

quote:

---

Or am I pulling strawmen out my ass.

---

Yes. Yes, you are.

quote:

---

There are many methods of observation other than vision and hearing.

---

Indeed. And deaf people are lacking one of them. So if there can be sound in the presence of deaf people who can't hear it, then sound must be independent of the presence of somebody there to hear it.

quote:

---

That's what I was getting at with my "somebody else heard the tree" question.

---

Irrelevant. If a tree falls in front of a hearing and a deaf person, there is sound, yes? So why does anything change with the removal of the hearing person? The process of the tree falling hasn't changed. Any processes that happened that resulted in the generation of sound are still function and still result in sound being generated. Therefore, the removal of the hearing person doesn't change anything. The deaf person still can't hear the sound and yet the sound existed.

quote:

---

If an electromagnetic wave interacts with anything, then it exists.

---

Then by your logic sound exists independently of the existence of people to hear it since sound, by definition, is the vibration of molecules. That's why there isn't any sound in space: There is no medium for the vibration to pass through. It's a vacuum.So since sound is the interaction of the medium with itself, sound exists even if there is nobody there to hear it.That's why we have two different words: "Sound" and "hearing." You detect the former with the latter. That you lack the detection equipment doesn't mean the sound isn't there.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Funkaloyd responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

sound, by definition, is the vibration of molecules.

---

​

This is where our disagreement stems from. I view C minor, red and cold as subjective, whereas waves in a medium, electromagnetic waves and thermal energy are objective.

---

Then you have abandoned not just music theory and physics but the English language as well. Cm is defined theoretically, not perceptually: It is the C-major chord with the third dropped by a half-step (augmented is the major with the fifth dropped a half-step and a diminished is the major with both the third and the fifth dropped a half-step.) Red is defined theoretically, not perceptually: It is the range of photons with wavelengths between 625 and 740 nm. You will notice that both of these definitions do not insert a consciousness into the mix. They are defined in terms of the object, itself.Indeed, "cold" is a subjective term. That's why there is no physical definition of "cold." "Sound," on the other hand, does have a physical definition. It is the vibration of molecules. It does not depend upon the existence of a detector of those vibrations. So long as there is a medium that is vibrating, then there is sound.

quote:

---

Certain waves can cause sound to be perceived by certain creatures, but so can Diphenhydramine.

---

Which is why sound is not dependent upon a listener. By your logic, there is no such thing as hallucination. You may be hearing sound, but that doesn't mean sound is there to hear.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Where do you think all the light is coming from on a cloudy day? The clouds?

---

​

You missed the point.

---

Nice try. That's my argument to you: Even if there is nobody there to look at the photons given off by the sun, the sun is still giving them off, yes? Stop bringing up strawmen about clouds in front of the sun and focus on the question you were asked:Does the sun give off light even if there is nobody there to see it?

quote:

---

On a 'horrible', cloudy winter day, the Sun isn't considered to be shining as such

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?The sun somehow stops shining due to localized weather patterns on earth? As I asked you directly: Where do you think the photons that are lighting up the area around you are coming from, even on tremendously overcast days: The clouds?That is a serious question asked in all sincerity: If the sun is not shining, where are the photons coming from?

quote:

---

even though it's emitting just as much light as it would on a cloudless summer day.

---

Then how can it not be shining? If it's still giving off just as many photons as it was before, how can light be dependent upon there being somebody there to see it?You're making the argument of solipsism, which is ludicrous.

quote:

---

The process hasn't changed, yet the perceived brightness has.

---

So? What does perception have to do with it? The question is: If the sun shines upon the earth and there is nobody there to see it, does it shine any light?Even on the brightest day, all I need to do is shut my eyes real tight and I don't see any light at all. But there's still light everywhere around, yes? Are you saying that the photons magically disappear simply because I'm no longer seeing them?

quote:

---

quote:

---

If there is nobody to see the sun shining, does it still shine? If you close your eyes, do the lights go out?

---

​

The lights remain on, even if I leave the room.

---

Then you just contradicted yourself. If there is still light, even if there is nobody there to see it, then there is still sound, even if there is nobody there to hear it. Light and sound are not defined by our ability to perceive it. They are defined physically, not perceptually.

quote:

---

The Sun still emits radiation, but I've never been acquainted with a yellow photon.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?The only way your comment could make any kind of sense is if you were completely blind. "Yellow" is defined as those photons with a wavelength of about 565 to 590 nm.

quote:

---

quote:

---

as far as the deaf person is concerned, everything is identical to what it was before. If there was a sound previously, then there must be a sound now.

---

​

From the deaf person's point of view, there wasn't any sound previously.

---

So? We all agreed there was sound, even though the deaf person didn't hear it. Therefore, if there was sound before, even though the deaf person didn't hear it, then there must be sound now, despite the fact that the deaf person didn't hear it.Sound is not dependent upon the existence of someone to hear it. Sound is defined physically, not perceptually.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Every frequency of light has a color. We just can detect all of them with our retinas.

---

​

I assume you meant "can't"?

---

Yes. I am notorious for dropping my "nots." I don't understand how or why it happens. But for some reason every now and again I mean to say "verb + not" and instead it comes out as "verb."

quote:

---

Either way, that's a pretty absurd comment. Would you say that water, pure H2O, has taste or odour?

---

No, because taste and odor cannot be defined physically, per se. The perceptions of taste and odor are based upon chemical reactions. Unlike light which has a discrete unit known as a "photon" and sound which has a discrete unit known as a "waveform," there is no discrete unit of taste or odor. A molecule is not a "taste-on" or an "odor-on."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Ben responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Cm is defined theoretically, not perceptually: It is the C-major chord with the third dropped by a half-step (augmented is the major with the fifth dropped a half-step and a diminished is the major with both the third and the fifth dropped a half-step.)

---

​

You gave a relative definition, which shows nothing. If C-major is defined perceptually, then C minor would be too. C-major can be defined as the sound vibration at 65.4Hz * 2^n, where n is an integer.

---

Yes and no. I had assumed some understanding of music theory upon the part of anybody following along. A above middle C is defined as the tone having precisely 440 Hz. It wasn't always defined as such. It varied between 400 and 450 Hz during the 18th and 19th centuries. Setting A above middle C to 440 Hz was suggested in 1939 and was adopted by the ISO in 1955 (it is ISO standard 16.)In the chromatic, diatonic scale, the rest of the notes are defined off of the definition of A above middle C, but there are different methodologies to do so. Equal temperament divides the octave range into 12 equal intervals. There's also meantone temperament and well temperament (used for J.S. Bach's "The Well Tempered Clavier").However, it doesn't really matter how C is defined so long as it is. Even without any actual sound to listen to, a major chord is the root plus major-third plus minor-third. The minor chord reduces the middle tone by a half-step and thus flipping the intervals between notes: root plus minor-third plus major-third. While "C" may be considered perceptual (though there are methods to define it physically), major and minor chords are defined theoretically.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Red is defined theoretically, not perceptually: It is the range of photons with wavelengths between 625 and 740 nm.

---

​

You're using "defined" here as if the definition you gave is sufficient to define red. Absolutely not.

---

Excuse me? You mean all my chemistry and physics texts that define red as such are in some sort of error?

quote:

---

It's only one of the definitions. The other is consciousness-based.

---

Ah, but here's the thing: Most every human defines "red" to be the exact same wavelength. If you take a color chip set that has representative samples of most every shade of red imaginable and put them to someone who speaks a language that has a color term for "red" (not all languages do) and ask him to pick out the one that most typifies the color "red," the same chip gets picked by most everyone.

quote:

---

Clearly the word "red" was first defined as consciousness-based;

---

Yes, but only in response to a physical phenomenon. The photon was red before there was a person to call it "red."One of the most interesting aspects of the development of language among humans is the fact that color terms fall into a fairly regimented pattern. Every langauge that has only two pure color terms has those terms being "black" and "white." If the language has three pure color terms, that third color is always "red." And remember, they all define "red" in the same way. Note, people who speak only a two-color language aren't incapable of seeing or talking about other colors. Instead, those other colors are defined in terms of objects much in the way English uses a reference to the stone turquoise to refer to that particular shade of pale, greenish blue, or by modifying other terms such as the way English refers to lighter shades of blue as "baby blue" or "powder blue" or "sky blue" as opposed to lighter shades of red having its own color term, "pink."After "red" comes either "yellow" or "green/blue" Five colors has if you had "yellow," you pick up "green/blue" and if you had "green/blue," you pick up "yellow." Six has "green" and "blue" splitting apart. After that, things get complicated.

quote:

---

our knowledge that the conscious "red" in "normal" circumstances correlates with the range of frequencies you described is much newer than the word (it's definitely not before Maxwell's time.

---

True, but we were reacting to a physical phenomenon: The photon was red before we called it "red."

quote:

---

I'd copy/paste a definition for red, but the dictionaries I use don't bother giving the scientific definition. They only give the consciousness-based one.

---

You should try again: Dictionary.com's definition of "red" uses the scientific one as the very first one:

quote:

---

But anyway, the proof is in the pudding; the consciousness-based "red" is the one we use every day in our english language. Very few of us have access to the wavelength-based definition via our senses (and would be considered abnormal). Instead, we only have conscious access to downpath processing of color information. And our language reflects that.

---

But that's the thing, we all are going off of the same definition, across languages, across cultures. Around the world, everybody understands what "red" is. When asked to pick the most representative sample of what the color "red" is, all humans pick the same wavelength.

quote:

---

The consciousness-based red is the only one we have access to.

---

But it's based on a physical pheonomenon and is triggered by the same wavelength to everyone. The photon was red before anybody was around to call it "red." The actual word used to describe it is irrelevant.

quote:

---

You can't possibly eliminate that definition; otherwise, you've removed the everyday power and utility of the word. The scientific definition is but one definition of red.

---

True, but irrelevant. Color divisions are arbitrary, yes, but just because something is arbitrary doesn't mean it isn't real. We're back to the common creationist/fundamentalist fallacy that without god, there is no such thing as morality as if atheists would just as soon kill you as look at you. The rules of Monopoly are completely arbitrary and were made by humans and even change from game to game, but they are very real. Break them and you're cheating.

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, because taste and odor cannot be defined physically, per se. The perceptions of taste and odor are based upon chemical reactions. Unlike light which has a discrete unit known as a "photon" and sound which has a discrete unit known as a "waveform," there is no discrete unit of taste or odor. A molecule is not a "taste-on" or an "odor-on."

---

​

Now this surprises me. First, your request for "discrete units" is ... out of nowhere. There are no "discrete units" for measuring light or sound;

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?There is no such thing as a photon? There is no such thing as a waveform? I made those terms up?

quote:

---

they are done via the analog Hz scale.

---

Irrelevant. A photon and a waveform exist, do they not? A photon has a frequency, does it not? A waveform has a frequency, does it not? Why does it matter what scale we use to measure it?

quote:

---

We've put some arbitrary labels on those scales to define ranges as colors, but those arbitrary labels are available in tastes and odors as well--tart, sweet, salty, etc.

---

No, not really. There are only five receptors on the human tongue: Sweet, salt, sour, bitter, and umami. What makes them trigger is a physical structure that causes them to fit in the receptor. That's why artificial sweeteners work: They have a physical structure that allows the molecules to fit into the sweet receptor on the tongue. The rest of the molecule can be shaped differently than other "sweet" things so long as it has the appropriate shape somewhere along its morphology that is physically capable of fitting into the receptor. Smell is similar though with a much broader range of molecular shapes that can be detected.Compare this to photons or waveforms: There is only one. If the photon is of 700 nm, then it is 700 nm everywhere (and let's not get disingenuous about relativistic motion...assume an inertial reference frame.) A waveform of 440 Hz is A above middle C. You can't get another frequency to mimic 440 Hz while not being 440 Hz.

quote:

---

What gives us the ability to do these mappings, and create scientific definitions of words created to describe conscious states is a correlation between a conscious state and a scientifically measurable state. The real question is, do such states exist.

---

If they are scientificially measurable, then they do exist.

quote:

---

If you had read up on the olfactory system, you would have read that we have on the order of thousands of discrete odor receptors. The chemical reactions of those receptor cells can, just like for light, be described scientifically. Odors can be defined as different combinations of those discrete receptors.

​

Taste is basically the same.

---

But you've got it backwards. The smell and taste receptors are reacting to a shape. That's why artificial odors and flavors work: They mimic the shape of the "real thing" without actually being it. Thus, rather than there being a discrete molecule that can be considered the odor or flavor, there are many.

quote:

---

I'd suggest that the real answer why we haven't added scientific definitions to taste and odors is because there's both been no easy technology to do so, and no call to do so. I am pretty confident that the technology, and the call, will both come in time.

---

You don't know much about the artificial flavoring or perfume industries, do you? They have done exactly that. Walk into a perfume-makers shop and you will find the sample oils separated by odor classification.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

cavediver responds to me:

quote:

---

Since when is "yellow" defined like that?

---

Since physics started studying the concept in depth. It's defined as such in all of my chemistry and physics textbooks.And then, of course, there is the International Commission on Illumination (or CIE) which is the authority for defining color.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Every frequency of light has a color.

---

​

It does? And what would be the colour of a 10m wave?

---

Ten meters? That's VHF."Color" is a reference to the frequency/wavelength of light. Since every photon has a frequency/wavelength, then every photon has a color. Don't confuse the fact that we have not named every single wavelength with a unique color term to mean that it doesn't have a color.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

1.61803 responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

What is "a disturbance of air forming waves which affect the surroundings as a pressure differential": if not the definition of "sound.

---

​

Good point....except that there is the physical definition of sound, and the mental definition. I am sure you know the difference.

---

Yes, but the mental definition is irrelevant. Hallucinations and imaginations cause people to hear sounds that aren't there. The question isn't whether or not you hear a sound. The question is whether or not the TREE MAKES sound. Therefore, the only definition of "sound" that makes any sense is one that removes you from the equation since we're concerned about what the tree is doing, not you.

quote:

---

The tree falling in the absence of a receiver makes sound waves. But to hear the sound requires a tympanic membrane and associated neurological hardware and software.

---

Indeed. And the question is whether or not the tree made sound, not if the tree was heard. Hearing and sound are not the same thing.

quote:

---

Without such there is no way to interpret the soundwave as sound data.

---

Who said anything about interpreting it? The question is whether or not the tree made any sound, not what kind of sound it made.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Did the sun shine before there was anybody there to see it? By your logic, there is no such thing as light unless there is somebody there to see it.

---

​

Good point.....except the phenomenon of visable light requires a mechanism to observe it.

---

No, it doesn't. That's the entire point: Even if there is nobody there to see it, the sun still shines. In fact, the overwhelming majority of photons given off by the sun are never seen by anybody on earth. Are you claiming they don't exist? Those photons "require a mechanism to observe it" before they can exist?

quote:

---

What you see as the sun or a star as it exist static is meaninless because there is no means to make that observation. All we see is a electromagnetic field or a quantum interaction from the local field and our retina absorbing energy from the field to our eyes and causing a change to the local field.

---

All sensory perception is that way. Are you wandering down the road to Cartesian Doubt?

quote:

---

We affect reality by our observation.

---

No, we don't. And don't be disingenuous and start quoting the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to me. It doesn't mean that. You aren't a subatomic particle interacting with another one. The sun emitted those photons that are entering your eye about 8 minutes ago. Your observation of them doesn't change anything about the sun. Sensory perception is a passive process: Stimuli comes to you, you don't get to go to it. Observation happens after the emission of stimulus, not before.

quote:

---

And did the sun shine before there was a lifeform to observe it. No it did not shine, it eminated electromagnetic radiation

---

Huh? What is "eminated [sic] electromagnetic radiation" if not the definition of "shine"?Why are you playing these semantic games?

quote:

---

I do understand your points though...do you understand mine?

---

No. It sounds like you want to play games rather than discuss the issue with sincerity.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

1.61803 responds to riVeRraT:

quote:

---

quote:

---

I am sure there are frequencies that no creature can hear, but it would still be sound.

---

​

Yes it would be soundwaves, but the word sound infers that something heard it.

---

No, not at all. That's the entire point of the question: Is there sound if there is nobody there to hear it?

quote:

---

If it is inperceptable then how can one say they hear a sound?

---

Excuse me? Who said anything about hearing the sound? The question is not if you heard it. The question is if the tree made it. You aren't a part of the question.Did the TREE make any sound? How does your presence affect the tree's behaviour with regard to the motion of the air and the earth?

quote:

---

The question posed is if a tree falls in an empty forest does it make a sound? NOT if a tree falls in a forest does it produce soundwaves in a frequency that can could be heard.

---

Huh? Only vibrations between 20 and 20,000 Hz are "sound"?

quote:

---

You are in a vacuum. I drop a large Cymbal in the room. Did it make a sound?

---

Within the cymbal, yes. The cymbal is vibrating and sound, by definition, is the vibration of molecules. That sound won't travel anywhere outside the cymbal, however, because there is no medium for the sound to travel through in a vacuum.

quote:

---

Then In a normal room I ask you to tell me what sounds you can hear or if there is any sound while a ultrasonic device is ocillating.

---

We're back to your seeming claim that only vibrations between 20 and 20,000 Hz are "sound."

quote:

---

The barrier as you call it was a coined term during a moment in time when aeronautical engineers where trying to make jets travel at a speed that soundwaves travel. It has nothing to do with sound.

---

Yes, it does. It has everything to do with sound. Sound is a vibration of the medium. As such, there is a maximum speed the waveform can travel through that medium. That speed changes with respect to the makeup and temperature of the medium. The speed of sound near the surface of the earth is not the same as the speed of sound 30,000 feet above it.

quote:

---

But I do not see anyone recording the best of compilations of they're liver.

---

Huh? Sound is only sound if it is interesting to listen to?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

Oh BTW, rhain is incorrect in saying that there is no sound in space, because if there is no sound in space, then there is no sound on earth either.

​

The correct statment would be that sound waves cannot travel in an absolute vacum.

​

Space is not an absolute vacum, and sound can travel in space. Not only that but if 2 objects collide in space, sound waves will reverberate through them, hence making sound in space.

---

Thus showing you didn't read what I wrote.I was talking about space, not the objects within space. Obviously if you set up a vibration within an object, there is sound within that object. However, that object is not space.What on earth do you think "There is no medium for the vibration to pass through" means?And while you are technically correct that space is not a perfect vacuum, it is the height of disingenuousness to claim that sound in space is akin to anything we might experience. The amount of energy required to set up a coherent waveform in interstellar medium is not trivial.Do you like playing games?

cavediver responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Since physics started studying the concept in depth. It's defined as such in all of my chemistry and physics textbooks.

---

​

Well, not in any of mine, nor those that I have helped edit, nor have I ever taught any of my students such absurdity.

---

Then I suggest you get some better books. As an example, my chemistry text, Chemistry: Experiment and Theory by Bernice G. Segal, goes into color associations with wavelengths when discussing the emission spectrum of atomic hydrogen.Both of my H&Rs go into it, too. In fact, the more pedantic of them, Physics, Parts 1 & 2 (you may have noticed the cartoon Foxtrot every now and then shows Peter Fox with a physics textbook with a bunch of wavy lines on the cover...that's the one I'm referring to), has this to say: Then theres my Sears, Zemansky, and Young, which provides the following helpful table:

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

1.61803 responds to me:

quote:

---

There are several theories in regards to reality:
The Copenhagen interpretation

---

Stop right there.Did I or did I not ask you not to invoke uncertainty? Don't be disingenuous and say you're talking about quantum theory. That's just an extension of the problem.It doesn't mean what you think it means.Question: Have you ever watched a kid pilfer a cookie from the cookie jar before dinner when the kid knows that he's not supposed to? Don't you find it interesting that the kid never seems to try to sneak a cookie when he knows he's being watched? And yet, here you are watching the kid sneak a cookie. How can that be? Isn't your observation affecting him?No, of course not. Your observation isn't affecting him. It's his knowledge of your observation that is affecting him. If he knows he's being watched, he doesn't do it. If he doesn't know he's being watched, he does. In fact, you don't have to actually watch him. You just have to make him think that he's being watched and he won't do it.That is the type of observation we're talking about. Macroscopic, neurological observation.You are not a quantum particle.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

In other words, I am right.

---

Incorrect.In real words, you are playing a game. You are trying to substitue semantics for argumentation. That doesn't make you "right." It makes you incapable of grasping the point.

quote:

---

quote:

---

What on earth do you think "There is no medium for the vibration to pass through" means?

---

​

I was clarifying that there is sound in space within the objects that would make them.

---

And I have never said or even hinted at anything that would deny that. Instead, you want to play games.Grow up.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.