If a tree falls and no one hears it.....does it make a sound??

I say it doesn't because sound can't exist if no one is alive to hear it. Two400

[QUOTE="Two400"]I say it doesn't because sound can't exist if no one is alive to hear it. zero9167

George W. Bush is a war hero who deserves purple hearts

I think that this question can neither be proven nor disprovenlink01234567890

as one poster said, this question baffles me with its stupidity

If your screaming on the street and nobody hears you screaming...are you really screaming??? o_OGreenwhitegreen

Don't be stupid, of course you aren't screaming.

[QUOTE="Two400"]I say it doesn't because sound can't exist if no one is alive to hear it. zero9167

[QUOTE="zero9167"][QUOTE="Two400"]I say it doesn't because sound can't exist if no one is alive to hear it. Drakier

if i post this in this thread, and no one even knows if i exist...do people still see/laugh at it?

[QUOTE="wii4panta"]

[QUOTE="Greenwhitegreen"]If your screaming on the street andnobody hears you screaming...are you really screaming??? o_OGreenwhitegreen

in that case you hear yourself so,if you are human,you should be able to hear your scream...logic lent by tc :D

if anyone is close to you they will hear you.Otherwise they are not human :P

[QUOTE="zero9167"][QUOTE="Two400"]I say it doesn't because sound can't exist if no one is alive to hear it. mig_killer2

George W. Bush is a war hero who deserves purple hearts

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]

[QUOTE="zero9167"][QUOTE="Two400"]I say it doesn't because sound can't exist if no one is alive to hear it. Big_player

George W. Bush is a war hero who deserves purple hearts

[QUOTE="Greenwhitegreen"][QUOTE="wii4panta"]

[QUOTE="Greenwhitegreen"]If your screaming on the street andnobody hears you screaming...are you really screaming??? o_Owii4panta

in that case you hear yourself so,if you are human,you should be able to hear your scream...logic lent by tc :D

if anyone is close to you they will hear you.Otherwise they are not human :P

Of course it does. Just because no one heard it doesn't mean the sound wouldn't happen. Going by your logic, who says theres a tree at all? No ones there to see it, why would it exist?Mumbles527

Couldn't have said it better myself. I always hated this stupid question. Why should humans be detrimental to something happening in nature?

The relative notion of sound takes into effect two things the object that creates the sound and the receiver of the sound. The common deduction is that sound will exist without the receiver present. Although this breaks the rather fundamental nature of how sound works in order to be properly understood and expressed. So ifone of thetwo portions of that which make up 'the sound' is not present then does it still constitute as a sound? The obvious answer is no. Sound then, in relativity, does not exist. In effect it does not exist in that portion or time based upon perception.Devosion

Who in the world says that duducing sound exists without a receiver present breaks the fundamental nature of how sound works? You don't need to "hear" sound for it to exist. Who ever taught you what you know about sound is way wrong.

WTf, of course it makes a sound. Just because no one hears it doesn't mean it doesn't make a sound.

By that logic if I say that asteroids don't exist because i have never seen one, is that true?

WTf, of course it makes a sound. Just because no one hears it doesn't mean it doesn't make a sound.

By that logic if I say that asteroids don't exist because i have never seen one, is that true?

madman5222

[QUOTE="Devosion"]The relative notion of sound takes into effect two things the object that creates the sound and the receiver of the sound. The common deduction is that sound will exist without the receiver present. Although this breaks the rather fundamental nature of how sound works in order to be properly understood and expressed. So ifone of thetwo portions of that which make up 'the sound' is not present then does it still constitute as a sound? The obvious answer is no. Sound then, in relativity, does not exist. In effect it does not exist in that portion or time based upon perception.drewtwo99

Who in the world says that duducing sound exists without a receiver present breaks the fundamental nature of how sound works? You don't need to "hear" sound for it to exist. Who ever taught you what you know about sound is way wrong.

Your not quite understanding the implications here. The term or human cognizant notion of the wave form that is produced from any variety of forms known as 'sound' is relative to humans. The entire question is meant put the mind at ease and to realize the fundamentality of the notion of sound. That sound is a human aberrant that relates to a natural process that we do not understand but on limited terms.

And the fundamentality of sound is reliant upon human function and the resulting wave form. Thus without either the wave form or the interpretive human, sound does not exist in its entirety.

[QUOTE="drewtwo99"]

[QUOTE="Devosion"]The relative notion of sound takes into effect two things the object that creates the sound and the receiver of the sound. The common deduction is that sound will exist without the receiver present. Although this breaks the rather fundamental nature of how sound works in order to be properly understood and expressed. So ifone of thetwo portions of that which make up 'the sound' is not present then does it still constitute as a sound? The obvious answer is no. Sound then, in relativity, does not exist. In effect it does not exist in that portion or time based upon perception.Devosion

Who in the world says that duducing sound exists without a receiver present breaks the fundamental nature of how sound works? You don't need to "hear" sound for it to exist. Who ever taught you what you know about sound is way wrong.

Your not quite understanding the implications here. The term or human cognizant notion of the wave form that is produced from any variety of forms known as 'sound' is relative to humans. The entire question is meant put the mind at ease and to realize the fundamentality of the notion of sound. That sound is a human aberrant that relates to a natural process that we do not understand but on limited terms.

And the fundamentality of sound is reliant upon human function and the resulting wave form. Thus without either the wave form or the interpretive human, sound does not exist in its entirety.

Ugg, yeah in the same way that a chair doesn't really exist if no one sits in it to experience the act of sitting in that chair, then the tree doesn't make a sound. Because however sound is just vibrations through a material, and a falling tree invariably causes vibrations throughout the mediums it comes into contact with, then a sound is invariably produced. And because a chair will always exert a normal force to objects which come into contact with it in such a way that an object can come to rest on the chair when given the opportunity, the chair actually does exist whether or not someone sits in it.

Ugg, yeah in the same way that a chair doesn't really exist if no one sits in it to experience the act of sitting in that chair, then the tree doesn't make a sound. Because however sound is just vibrations through a material, and a falling tree invariably causes vibrations throughout the mediums it comes into contact with, then a sound is invariably produced. And because a chair will always exert a normal force to objects which come into contact with it in such a way that an object can come to rest on the chair when given the opportunity, the chair actually does exist whether or not someone sits in it.

drewtwo99

Well now your drawing in an unnatural non-wavelength form into this. Really is a terrible analogy in comparison to a natural element such as that which is terminally known as 'sound'.

[QUOTE="drewtwo99"]

Ugg, yeah in the same way that a chair doesn't really exist if no one sits in it to experience the act of sitting in that chair, then the tree doesn't make a sound. Because however sound is just vibrations through a material, and a falling tree invariably causes vibrations throughout the mediums it comes into contact with, then a sound is invariably produced. And because a chair will always exert a normal force to objects which come into contact with it in such a way that an object can come to rest on the chair when given the opportunity, the chair actually does exist whether or not someone sits in it.

Devosion

Well now your drawing in an unnatural non-wavelength form into this. Really is a terrible analogy in comparison to a natural element such as that which is terminally known as 'sound'.

Wrong. A chair is just as much of a waveform as any sound-wave. Go read some quantum mechanics and you'll find out that every solid thing is actually a wave packet, with a VERY long dispersion time.

[QUOTE="Devosion"][QUOTE="drewtwo99"]

Ugg, yeah in the same way that a chair doesn't really exist if no one sits in it to experience the act of sitting in that chair, then the tree doesn't make a sound. Because however sound is just vibrations through a material, and a falling tree invariably causes vibrations throughout the mediums it comes into contact with, then a sound is invariably produced. And because a chair will always exert a normal force to objects which come into contact with it in such a way that an object can come to rest on the chair when given the opportunity, the chair actually does exist whether or not someone sits in it.

drewtwo99

Well now your drawing in an unnatural non-wavelength form into this. Really is a terrible analogy in comparison to a natural element such as that which is terminally known as 'sound'.

Wrong. A chair is just as much of a waveform as any sound-wave. Go read some quantum mechanics and you'll find out that every solid thing is actually a wave packet, with a VERY long dispersion time.

Ok now your just attempting to draw similarities between frequencies and waveforms, which are two completely different things. While a sound carries a frequency and a wave form it carries little in common with an unnatural, human-made, object of a different frequency like a chair. So dont go and tell me im wrong before checking the facts, ok.

If your gonna create an analogy why didnt you use something like touch or anything else that requires sensual perception? It's obvious. Because the notion that anything that registers in the mind as a terminal instance as an absolute is just a relativization. The instance of sound is terminal, but that which precedes sound, that is the molecules and waveforms within are the a priori inexperienced.

Ok now your just attempting to draw similarities between frequencies and waveforms, which are two completely different things. While a sound carries a frequency and a wave form it carries little in common with an unnatural, human-made, object of a different frequency like a chair. So dont go and tell me im wrong before checking the facts, ok.

If your gonna create an analogy why didnt you use something like touch or anything else that requires sensual perception? It's obvious. Because the notion that anything that registers in the mind as a terminal instance as an absolute is just a relativization. The instance of sound is terminal, but that which precedes sound, that is the molecules and waveforms within are the a priori inexperienced.

Devosion

Excuse me as you may be more informed than me, but as a physics major just entering into his senior year in undergrad studies, I think I should know at least the basic ideas of quantum mechanics. And one of those is that nothing is precisely identified in position. Everything must be represented as a waveform, and you can actually calculated the dispersion rate of a very complex wave packet such as a human being. My professors have given me this information, and it ends up being longer than the amount of time that the universe has been around. We are all waveforms, plain and simply.

and I did use something that requires sensual perception, I actually did use touch.

Unless the forest is in a vacuum, yes, it makes a sound.helium_flash

I'd like to see that! A forest in a vacuum!

Yes and no, waves of energy(or what have you)are produced no matter what. But if nobody or thing is around to hear it than it cant be interpreted into our definition of sound.:roll:onenonle

Sound is a disturbance of mechanical energy that propagates through matter as a wave. Sound is characterized by the properties of waves, which are frequency, wavelength, period, amplitude, and speed.

I see nothing about a human interpretation to sound.

Yes sir. It's just that no one's around to hear it, that's all.guardian2angel1

I saw that on the daily showmig_killer2

[QUOTE="Devosion"]

Ok now your just attempting to draw similarities between frequencies and waveforms, which are two completely different things. While a sound carries a frequency and a wave form it carries little in common with an unnatural, human-made, object of a different frequency like a chair. So dont go and tell me im wrong before checking the facts, ok.

If your gonna create an analogy why didnt you use something like touch or anything else that requires sensual perception? It's obvious. Because the notion that anything that registers in the mind as a terminal instance as an absolute is just a relativization. The instance of sound is terminal, but that which precedes sound, that is the molecules and waveforms within are the a priori inexperienced.

drewtwo99

Excuse me as you may be more informed than me, but as a physics major just entering into his senior year in undergrad studies, I think I should know at least the basic ideas of quantum mechanics. And one of those is that nothing is precisely identified in position. Everything must be represented as a waveform, and you can actually calculated the dispersion rate of a very complex wave packet such as a human being. My professors have given me this information, and it ends up being longer than the amount of time that the universe has been around. We are all waveforms, plain and simply.

and I did use something that requires sensual perception, I actually did use touch.

Waveforms based upon frequencies, but then again you have still yet to create a proper analogy that debunks anything i've said. And you've just gone ahead and ignored the fact that sound exists on a different frequency than a chair! Just as well this is getting way off-topic from the original debate.

Now can you please explain to me the relevance of touching a chair, again an unnatural dissimilar object, to that of an emanating sound.

I say it doesn't because sound can't exist if no one is alive to hear it. Two400

Um yeah it can. All sound is, vibration.

Waveforms based upon frequencies, but then again you have still yet to create a proper analogy that debunks anything i've said. And you've just gone ahead and ignored the fact that sound exists on a different frequency than a chair! Just as well this is getting way off-topic from the original debate.

Now can you please explain to me the relevance of touching a chair, again an unnatural dissimilar object, to that of an emanating sound.

Devosion

First of all, just because quantum mechanical particles oscilate does not mean that their wave properties are derived from the fact that they have a frequency. This is part of it, of course, but as the definition of a wave contains more than just frequency, it doesn't even make sense to say a wave form based on frequencies, as all waveforms have frequencies.

Anyway, I evidentally don't understand your argument as my analogy was not to debunk your definition of sound, but simply to draw a parallel. If you believe that sound can't truly exist without a being to experience it in all that defines what sound is, then I believe that a chair can't truly exist if it is never sat upon by a being to experience all that is defined to be a chair.

The relative notion of sound takes into effect two things the object that creates the sound and the receiver of the sound. The common deduction is that sound will exist without the receiver present. Although this breaks the rather fundamental nature of how sound works in order to be properly understood and expressed. So ifone of thetwo portions of that which make up 'the sound' is not present then does it still constitute as a sound? The obvious answer is no. Sound then, in relativity, does not exist. In effect it does not exist in that portion or time based upon perception.Devosion

[QUOTE="Devosion"]

Waveforms based upon frequencies, but then again you have still yet to create a proper analogy that debunks anything i've said. And you've just gone ahead and ignored the fact that sound exists on a different frequency than a chair! Just as well this is getting way off-topic from the original debate.

Now can you please explain to me the relevance of touching a chair, again an unnatural dissimilar object, to that of an emanating sound.

drewtwo99

Anyway, I evidentally don't understand your argument as my analogy was not to debunk your definition of sound, but simply to draw a parallel. If you believe that sound can't truly exist without a being to experience it in all that defines what sound is, then I believe that a chair can't truly exist if it is never sat upon by a being to experience all that is defined to be a chair.

Then your right a chair cant exist without it being defined. Just like sound didnt exist without it being defined. This is the relativation I was talking about. The question in effect carries an extra part 'If humans did not exist and, a tree fell in the forest would it make a sound?' The most obvious answer is no because of the case of relativization. Nothing that is defined thereupon the conscious mind can exist without the dual aspect of that nature. Thus the internalization and the externalization. It's basic projection.

The question has nothing to do with what constitues what a sound is or how it works, because there is no way we can be sure based upon micro and macrocosmic theory. Whether it be quantum, M, or string theory, there is no irrifutable proof of the absolution of how sound works or the effects thereupon. All that we have to work on is the middle ground of our singular relativization, and when that is unavailable then the sound itself did never reach the means of perception.

Then your right a chair cant exist without it being defined. Just like sound didnt exist without it being defined. This is the relativation I was talking about. The question in effect carries an extra part 'If humans did not exist and, a tree fell in the forest would it make a sound?' The most obvious answer is no because of the case of relativization. Nothing that is defined thereupon the conscious mind can exist without the dual aspect of that nature. Thus the internalization and the externalization. It's basic projection.

The question has nothing to do with what constitues what a sound is or how it works, because there is no way we can be sure based upon micro and macrocosmic theory. Whether it be quantum, M, or string theory, there is no irrifutable proof of the absolution of how sound works or the effects thereupon. All that we have to work on is the middle ground of our singular relativization, and when that is unavailable then the sound itself did never reach the means of perception.

Devosion

I don't quite understand what you mean by something can't exist without being defined. The universe and everything in it existed long before anything was around to define it.

[QUOTE="Devosion"]

Then your right a chair cant exist without it being defined. Just like sound didnt exist without it being defined. This is the relativation I was talking about. The question in effect carries an extra part 'If humans did not exist and, a tree fell in the forest would it make a sound?' The most obvious answer is no because of the case of relativization. Nothing that is defined thereupon the conscious mind can exist without the dual aspect of that nature. Thus the internalization and the externalization. It's basic projection.

The question has nothing to do with what constitues what a sound is or how it works, because there is no way we can be sure based upon micro and macrocosmic theory. Whether it be quantum, M, or string theory, there is no irrifutable proof of the absolution of how sound works or the effects thereupon. All that we have to work on is the middle ground of our singular relativization, and when that is unavailable then the sound itself did never reach the means of perception.

drewtwo99

I don't quite understand what you mean by something can't exist without being defined. The universe and everything in it existed long before anything was around to define it.

It's a hard concept to understand and it is something you will eventually run into in physics, depending on how far into it you go. But its inherently a concept that considers the implications of the lack of a consciousness to define things. Its as if we went around and looked at rocks, trees, rivers, and what-not then came to the realization that none of this is what we call it or make of it due to the limited scope we see it in. It draws on the fact that the mind is required to make anything of anything. That without the advent of consciousness that all things would simply be and be defined by nothing. It's an a priori concept to that of consciousness and that is what makes it so hard to grasp. This concept in itself is rather fundamental and arises from platonic thought and has a variety of undercurrents throughout history.

I have to answers to this question.

1.Yes because even if nothing is around to hear it, it still makes a sound.

2.Does it count if it hits a gopher?

[QUOTE="drewtwo99"]

Ugg, yeah in the same way that a chair doesn't really exist if no one sits in it to experience the act of sitting in that chair, then the tree doesn't make a sound. Because however sound is just vibrations through a material, and a falling tree invariably causes vibrations throughout the mediums it comes into contact with, then a sound is invariably produced. And because a chair will always exert a normal force to objects which come into contact with it in such a way that an object can come to rest on the chair when given the opportunity, the chair actually does exist whether or not someone sits in it.

Devosion

Well now your drawing in an unnatural non-wavelength form into this. Really is a terrible analogy in comparison to a natural element such as that which is terminally known as 'sound'.

Sound isn't relative. The vibration of air around a moving object is a fundamental principle of physics. You are thinking of hearing. Hearing is relative.

Depending on where you are located, the sounds will have different aspects that you can detect because you will be at different locations in the medium, which is air, not because you are in a different position from the moving object or source of the sound.

As long as the medium is present for sound to be transmitted, the sound will occur...hearing however, might not depending upon if someone is within range to hear the sound.

Edit: Also, the concept that the sound isn't present unless someone is present to prove that the sound is present is kind of irrelevant, because the question definitely asks "if a tree falls," which gives proof that the tree did fall, because otherwise the question wouldn't exist.

According to the thousands of years of precident in science, whenever an object moves through air, here on earth, it makes a noise by dispersing the air. I think thousands of years of scientific example and evidence is enough proof alone that if an object moves, it makes a noise.