|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If a tree falls | |||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 444 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
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. In other words, I am right.
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. 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.
Do you like playing games? Which ones?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hi riVerat!!
riVerat writes: Yes I agree that soundwaves exist in the absence of being heard. I agree. Your right. Using that definition of sound you are correct.
Doesn't matter If I hear them or not.In what we precieve * to be reality those soundwaves exist,so it is sound.riVerat writes: I dont know, If you are not around to hear it,or see it when that note was played, was there a sound?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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 444 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Do this thought experiment: You are in a vacuum. I drop a large Cymbal in the room. Did it make a sound? quotef course it made a sound. Are you sure? Remember, there's no air in a vacuum, thus no air molecules, thus... 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Grow up. That's quite humorous coming from you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Then I suggest you get some better books. 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:
color associations sensation of yellow-green color as a characterstic of light and color as a perceived property of objects
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nice hack job on my post, cavediver. Go back and read it fully and try again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Did so. My original post remains
Rrhain writes:
quote: Rrhain writes:
quote: Now tell me again how your references back up these gems? This message has been edited by cavediver, 01-02-2006 07:21 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Rrhain writes: By your logic, the sun doesn't shine unless somebody is there to look at it. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Rrhain writes:
Associations are not the same things as definitions. 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. Impeach Bush
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hello Senior Rrhain,
Rrhain writes: 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. Stop right there. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why? Do you have the final ultimate knowlege of how reality is manifested? 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.
And I say Ok then why the fuck is science so interested in it? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
and believe you me, there's nobody here who has more than a half-assed understanding of the subject, including me :cough:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024