Classic Debate: If a tree falls in the woods...

Originally posted by the lord god
O..k i suppose this is a forum of mincing words

if a tree should fall in the woods and nobody is around to hear it does it make a sound

...

well how bout this for an answer

It does, just coz

let me explain

It just does cos it does

not vaugue enuf for ya

...

we are all cabbages and nobody has legs we all speak through our noses and mouths dont exist

i think thats a fitting answer to a question of simalar stupidity lol

Just kidding.

This has alreaddy been provein, No it does not make a sound if theres nothing to hear it because, sound is made from sound waves hitting your ear drum creating the sound , so nothing to hear it , no noise.

Case Closed!!!

Originally posted by buttafly
...and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? I've debated this with my friend and because her favourite subject is SCIENCE, she argues that sounds still exists even though no one else can hear it. What are you thoughts on this??

If noone's there to experience it then it might aswell not be there.

Trees fall....something might acknowledge it...might not be me, but still doesn't prove it didn't make a sound.

I think...it doesn't make a sound....doesn't mean I'm not thinking....

This has alreaddy been provein, No it does not make a sound if theres nothing to hear it because, sound is made from sound waves hitting your ear drum creating the sound , so nothing to hear it , no noise.

wow your definition of sound is one of the stupidest things i've ever heard.good job.clapping

what is your definition of a sound wave i hope it has nothing to do with waves carrying sound

sound is not only felt through your ears you can also feel it through vibrations like fireworks for example the vibrations let off by the sound of the explosion shakes the ground so sound has exist without hearing it my girlfriend's deaf cousin could even feel the vibrations

and guess what he can't hear

OK.....If anthing falls.....a vibration is heard by something...Right?👇

Thats irrelevant question, if the tree falls its just matter of anyone hear it, for it to make a sound. Waves are just oscilations in the density, and pressure of a material, they don´t "carry sound". Sound is a sensation which is experimentated when those same waves pass through our ears. Even if you don´t agree with this, this question will be just a matter of definition of a word, not a philosophical question.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Thats irrelevant question, if the tree falls its just matter of anyone hear it, for it to make a sound. Waves are just oscilations in the density, and pressure of a material, they don´t "carry sound". Sound is a sensation which is experimentated when those same waves pass through our ears. .

So, you don't need ears to feel it....

the answer is that no the there is no sound there is only a sound wave with no one there to hear it it is not a sound (quantum physics)

Originally posted by buttafly
...and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? I've debated this with my friend and because her favourite subject is SCIENCE, she argues that sounds still exists even though no one else can hear it. What are you thoughts on this??

Of course it still makes a sound. Infrared and ultraviolet light exist, but we can't see them. Nor are we equipped to sense, say, radio waves. Just because we can't, or don't know something exists doesn't mean it's not there.

Originally posted by Darth Revan
Of course it still makes a sound. Infrared and ultraviolet light exist, but we can't see them. Nor are we equipped to sense, say, radio waves. Just because we can't, or don't know something exists doesn't mean it's not there.

Sound is strictly a perception. The air vibration that is interpreted as sound exists, but if there is no auditory device to intepret this vibration as sound, it is not sound.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Sound is strictly a perception. The air vibration that is interpreted as sound exists, but if there is no auditory device to intepret this vibration as sound, it is not sound.

My stomach churns at the thought of having this discussion with you again. You know damn well a noise that isn't heard is still a noise.

The perception of sound is the sense of hearing. Someone would have to hear it in order for it to be classified as sound.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
My stomach churns at the thought of having this discussion with you again. You know damn well a noise that isn't heard is still a noise.

This is the one thing that you and I do not seem to agree on. 😆

But I love you anyway. 😛

That would be interesting if it were true... but it is not. Hearing is our perception, but 'sound' is the word used to describe the vibration.

If the vibration is there, sound is there- they are the same thing. It is simply one of the primary definitions of the word 'sound'.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That would be interesting if it were true... but it is not. Hearing is our perception, but 'sound' is the word used to describe the vibration.

If the vibration is there, sound is there- they are the same thing. It is simply one of the primary definitions of the word 'sound'.

sound n. A sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by vibrations in the air or other medium.

Sound is not the vibration, it is the interpretation of that vibration.

"sound, n

Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing. "

I think you will find most dictionaries will carry a similar definition in there.

I am afraid your thinking there is very muddled, and you must consider the very purpose of a noun, the basic element of language. We label any concept there is.

If someone asks what the label that we give is to the vibration we are describing, the answer is simple- the word is sound.

It is how the word is most commonly used, too- to represent the phenomenon itself, not the experience of it, which is simply hearing.

Interestingly, my definition seems to come from the same source as yours. Are you being a tad selective in what you are reading? My one is the primary definition.

Heres a rather wordy primary definition from Collins:

"A periodic disturbance in the pressure or density of a fluid or in the elastic strain of a solid, produced by a vibrating object. It travels as longitudinal waves."

Trips off the tongue nicely, that.

Must be said, physicists who make specific study of sound would be pretty annoyed to hear someone trying to define it as merely the sensation of hearing. They went to all the trouble of discovering the nature of what sound actually is so that the definitions above could be printed in the first place; I am sure they didn't do that simply so people could then try and shift what the word meant.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Thats irrelevant question, if the tree falls its just matter of anyone hear it, for it to make a sound. Waves are just oscilations in the density, and pressure of a material, they don´t "carry sound". Sound is a sensation which is experimentated when those same waves pass through our ears. Even if you don´t agree with this, this question will be just a matter of definition of a word, not a philosophical question.

Dearie me!

How many people are being taken in by this fallacy? Where are people learning this bit of nonsense? Very worrying.

But no, the quesiton is not about definitions at all. Obviously the question is not being pitched with 'sound' meaning 'the hearing of sound', else yes, it WOULD be silly.

The question is using the word 'sound' in a proper way, and simply is an extension of wondering whether stuff actually happens if not observed.

It's silly thinking to think otherwise, in my opinion. If you are going to be that sceptical about all we know about physics as to be unsure if the sound actually occurs if no-one is there to hear it, then I am not sure on what grounds you think the sound is there if someone IS there to hear it. Once you are that sceptical, why even trust your senses?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
"sound, n

Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing. "

I think you will find most dictionaries will carry a similar definition in there.

I am afraid your thinking there is very muddled, and you must consider the very purpose of a noun, the basic element of language. We label any concept there is.

If someone asks what the label that we give is to the vibration we are describing, the answer is simple- the word is sound.

It is how the word is most commonly used, too- to represent the phenomenon itself, not the experience of it, which is simply hearing.

Interestingly, my definition seems to come from the same source as yours. Are you being a tad selective in what you are reading? My one is the primary definition.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Heres a rather wordy primary definition from Collins:

"A periodic disturbance in the pressure or density of a fluid or in the elastic strain of a solid, produced by a vibrating object. It travels as longitudinal waves."

Trips off the tongue nicely, that.

Must be said, physicists who make specific study of sound would be pretty annoyed to hear someone trying to define it as merely the sensation of hearing. They went to all the trouble of discovering the nature of what sound actually is so that the definitions above could be printed in the first place; I am sure they didn't do that simply so people could then try and shift what the word meant.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Dearie me!

How many people are being taken in by this fallacy? Where are people learning this bit of nonsense? Very worrying.

But no, the quesiton is not about definitions at all. Obviously the question is not being pitched with 'sound' meaning 'the hearing of sound', else yes, it WOULD be silly.

The question is using the word 'sound' in a proper way, and simply is an extension of wondering whether stuff actually happens if not observed.

It's silly thinking to think otherwise, in my opinion. If you are going to be that sceptical about all we know about physics as to be unsure if the sound actually occurs if no-one is there to hear it, then I am not sure on what grounds you think the sound is there if someone IS there to hear it. Once you are that sceptical, why even trust your senses?

sound n. Auditory sensation evoked by oscillation in a medium with internal forces.

sound n. The auditory perception of a pressure disturbance propagated through a medium and displacing molecules from a state of equilibrium; Something heard by the ears.

sound n. The hearing sensation excited by a physical disturbance in a medium.