Search results

yeah, I think this is just a semantics argument. I would define those vibrations, oscillations etc. as sound, you define sound as our interpretation of those oscillations. Anyway, who says the tree itself cannot interpret those oscillations as sound, in which case there is always something...

hang on, a few posts above you "sound is a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard, or the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such...

Ok, well i disagree, but :shrug: I think of the original paradox as 'if a tree falls in the forest but no-one is there to hear it, does it make a vibration that could be translated as sound?' I've always thought the definition of sound meant just that, and the actual translation of the...

But doesn't that fall apart when two people are present, and only one can hear it because his ears are better. "Listen to that amazing sound".. "I can't hear it, therefore it is not a sound and you are talking bollocks".."but I can hear it and it is beautiful".. "There is no sound, therefore...

yes, but isn't that a paradox merely designed to show that matter cannot exist in an either/or state?

hmmmm. dog whistles make sound to the dog, but not to the person. Likewise a tree falling on the forest may be heard by me 1 mile away, but not by you (or vice versa, depending who has the more sensitive ears). Therefore it is argued that whether it is sound or not depends on the receiver...