If a tree falls

In other words, I am right. I was clarifying that there is sound in space within the objects that would make them.If there are no objects to start the sound, then of course there is no sound, that would be true here on earth as well, or within any medium.When you say to people, there is no sound in space, It is usually assumed that there is an object making a noise, and that noise cannot go anywhere. Especially since there are objects in space, lots of them.That is why it is more acurate to say there is no sound in a vacum. Which ones?

Hi riVerat!! Yes I agree that soundwaves exist in the absence of being heard. I agree. Your right. Using that definition of sound you are correct. I dont know,
Because glass not only resonates it can also break due to being clumsy or a projectile hurled at it. So if I am not in the room and I come back and see the glass broken how do I know how the glass was broken? Was there a sound? I do not know because I was not there to hear it. Big foot could of came in the room for a beer and broke the glass for all I know.

As was stated and explained earlier in the thread, yes it does make a sound.As I explained, you would not hear it.I will add this though, you will not hear it, unless you are touching it.The sound waves created when the cymbol is hit will travel from the point of impact on the object to the ends of the object, then stop.
So there is sound.You know what I wonder is if when the sound waves reach the end of the object, if the energy used to create the sound wave continues in some other fashion off the object.

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.

That's quite humorous coming from you.

Rrhain, I am long past the point of reading physics text books to improve my physics Other than in areas with which I have very little experience. Light, photons, QED, etc are not areas in which I have little experience.As for the rest of your post, was it meant to demonstrate my position over yours, or was there something missing?The following snippets from your quotes may help:

Nice hack job on my post, cavediver. Go back and read it fully and try again.

Did so. My original post remains Rrhain writes:

quote:

---

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

---

Rrhain writes:

quote:

---

"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.

---

Now tell me again how your references back up these gems?This message has been edited by cavediver, 01-02-2006 07:21 AM

I might be wrong because English isn't my native language, but if I recall correctly everyone has a place where the sun don't shine. (For some reason that eludes me, talking about this place has a peculiar influence on one's use of grammar.)From what I gathered, suggesting to go and look if the sun really don't shine there is something that's not done in polite company. However, in this case, Rrhain, might it not be prudent to make an exception, in order to erm... throw some light on the matter?This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 02-Jan-2006 01:24 PM

Associations are not the same things as definitions.

---

Impeach Bush

Hello Senior Rrhain, Why? Do you have the final ultimate knowlege of how reality is manifested? Whatever. I am certainly more impressed by: Dr. N. Bohr,J. Wheeler, W. Heisenberg,Jon von Neumann,D. Bohm, H. Everett. All of which are contributors to the sample theories I posted earlier. And Mr. Rrhain suppose you explain the Uncertainty principal to me. So that I may be enlightened (lol) get it? Really if it does not mean what I think it means then I need straightening out.You said that observation does not affect reality... " your not a quantum particle." Now I say umm. What am I composed of if not the stuff that composes atoms? And you say....but that is not the macroscopic reality we know and does not apply. And I say Ok then why the fuck is science so interested in it?We are part of the system. Our observations do impact how reality plays out. A tiny fluctuation in intial conditions impacts and affects the resultant outcomes enormously. Even if the waveform propagates determinalistically the outcome is not carved in stone.
And I do understand your point about observation, I just do not think you understand mine, hence the disagreement.

No, I think he's simply trying to point out how stupid it is to take a situation with a fairly simple answer and try to make it complicated with a bunch of corner-case physics that don't apply. Since there's really no reason to try to do it except for someone to show off their half-assed understanding of quantum mechanics - and believe you me, there's nobody here who has more than a half-assed understanding of the subject, including me - I find myself in total agreement with him. If you don't understand the appeal of knowledge for knowledge's sake, then you simply won't understand the applicability of any scientific finding to your life.

:cough: