|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If a tree falls | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Yaro writes:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jar writes:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
1.61803 writes:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Yaro responds to me:
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Funkaloyd respodns to riVeRraT:
quote: Sorta. Earthquakes certainly create a lot of sound since they involve the movement of large masses of molecules, slamming them against other masses.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Funkaloyd responds to me:
quote:quote: (*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: 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: Indeed, they are. Every frequency of light has a color. We just can detect all of them with our retinas.
quote: Yes. Yes, you are.
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Funkaloyd responds to me:
quote:quote: 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: 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: 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: (*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: 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: 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: 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: (*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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Ben responds to me:
quote:quote: 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: Excuse me? You mean all my chemistry and physics texts that define red as such are in some sort of error?
quote: 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: 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: True, but we were reacting to a physical phenomenon: The photon was red before we called it "red."
quote: You should try again: Dictionary.com's definition of "red" uses the scientific one as the very first one:
1.a. The hue of the long-wave end of the visible spectrum, evoked in the human observer by radiant energy with wavelengths of approximately 630 to 750 nanometers; any of a group of colors that may vary in lightness and saturation and whose hue resembles that of blood; one of the additive or light primaries; one of the psychological primary hues. quote: 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: 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: 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: (*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: 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: 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: If they are scientificially measurable, then they do exist.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
cavediver responds to me:
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
1.61803 responds to me:
quote:quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: All sensory perception is that way. Are you wandering down the road to Cartesian Doubt?
quote: 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: Huh? What is "eminated [sic] electromagnetic radiation" if not the definition of "shine"? Why are you playing these semantic games?
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
1.61803 responds to riVeRraT:
quote:quote: No, not at all. That's the entire point of the question: Is there sound if there is nobody there to hear it?
quote: 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: Huh? Only vibrations between 20 and 20,000 Hz are "sound"?
quote: 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: We're back to your seeming claim that only vibrations between 20 and 20,000 Hz are "sound."
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT writes:
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
cavediver responds to me:
quote:quote: 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:
Figure 42-1, which shows the relative eye sensitivity of an assumed standard observer to radiations of various wavelengths, shows that the center of teh visible region is about 5.55 x 10-7 m or 555 nm. Light of this wavelength produces the sensation of yellow-green.* ... * See "The Retinex Theory of Color Vision" by Edwin H. Land, Scientific American, December 1977, and "Color and Perception: the Work of Edwin land in the Light of Current Concepts" by M. H. Wilson and R. W. Brocklebank, Contemporary Physics, December 1961, for a fascinating discussion of the problems of perception and the distinction between color as a characterstic of light and color as a perceived property of objects. Then theres my Sears, Zemansky, and Young, which provides the following helpful table:
400 to 440 nm Violet 440 to 480 nm Blue 480 to 530 nm Green 530 to 590 nm Yellow 590 to 630 nm Orange 630 to 700 nm Red 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
1.61803 responds to me:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote: 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: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024