Differences between Object and Phenomenon

[DaveC426913]

NO , SOUND requires a medium , air is that medium

That doesn't actually negate anything I said.
Just because vibrations are moving through the air does not necessarily mean that is sound.

There is a bit of semantic involved. Sound is often considered a phenomenon of perception, which, in turn, requires there to be a receiver.

 

[river]

That doesn't actually negate anything I said.
Just because vibrations are moving through the air does not necessarily mean that is sound.

So you admit vibrations but no sound ?

 

[DaveC426913]

So you admit vibrations but no sound ?

Where did you make such an assertion?
All you said was that air is the medium, which I do not dispute.

 

[river]

Where did you make such an assertion?
All you said was that air is the medium, which I do not dispute.

How could you dispute vibrations , physics , through air , medium .

 

[DaveC426913]

How could you dispute vibrations , physics , through air , medium .

I think you are confused.

I think you said NO, then agreed with me.

I don't actually know any more what you are asserting about whether a tree falling makes a sound if no one hears it.

 

[geordief]

.

 

[geordief]

Does a drunk fighting the air actually have an enemy?

 

[Asexperia]

To sum up the question: "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

There is sound or vibrations, but not tune, intensity and timbre.

 

[geordief]

There is sound or vibrations, but not tune, intensity and timbre.

What ,not even if tom tit squarks his finale as the tree falls?

 

[Bowser]

Does a drunk fighting the air actually have an enemy?

"Fight Club"

 

[Asexperia]

Object and body

The object is small or medium. It has form. For example: table, truck, plane.
The body is bigger than the object. For example: planets.
Chemicals are bodies too: water, oil, ice, air, etc.

 

[Michael 345]

Cesspool or lock please

 

[Asexperia]

Cesspool or lock please

Off-topic.

 

[exchemist]

Object and body

The object is small or medium. It has form. For example: table, truck, plane.
The body is bigger than the object. For example: planets.
Chemicals are bodies too: water, oil, ice, air, etc.

Meaningless rubbish.

You are confusing objects and bodies on the one hand with substances on the other. Objects and bodies (which are interchangeable terms in physics) are composed of substances. Obviously. To anyone normal.

 

[Asexperia]

You are confusing objects and bodies on the one hand with substances on the other. Objects and bodies (which are interchangeable terms in physics) are composed of substances. Obviously. To anyone normal.

You mean there isn't any difference between objects and body?

 

[sideshowbob]

You mean there isn't any difference between objects and body?

There isn't any significant difference. In specific instances, one word my be better than the other.

 

[Asexperia]

There isn't any significant difference. In specific instances, one word my be better than the other.

Very clear.

 

[river]

I think you are confused.

I think you said NO, then agreed with me.

I don't actually know any more what you are asserting about whether a tree falling makes a sound if no one hears it.

Your right , actually the tree makes a vibration in the air but if no Human or any living being is in the area to receive this vibration , in the air , then no sound will be detected .

river

 

[Equinox]

Your right , actually the tree makes a vibration in the air but if no Human or any living being is in the area to receive this vibration , in the air , then no sound will be detected .

river

The sound could potentially be 'detected' even if no one originally observed it.
For instance what if a sonic shockwave caused micro fissures in a rock which where then observed 1 million years later by a scientist. Even though nobody was there to observe the original event, there is still a record of the event - does this mean the event did not take place until it was observed? - for this to be the case it would require the detection of an event to affect things retroactively.

Alternatively you could say the rock itself is a type of detection device (given that it 'recorded' the event) in which case it could be said that any event/object that causes any type of disturbance to itself or its surroundings will ALWAYS be 'observed' via the effects it has upon its surroundings.

On another note, I once a Sci Fi story a very long time ago about a planet that tried to hide itself from observation in order to protect itself from being changed, does anybody know what it's called?)

 

[river]

The sound could potentially be 'detected' even if no one originally observed it.
For instance what if a sonic shockwave caused micro fissures in a rock which where then observed 1 million years later by a scientist. Even though nobody was there to observe the original event, there is still a record of the event - does this mean the event did not take place until it was observed? - for this to be the case it would require the detection of an event to affect things retroactively.

Alternatively you could say the rock itself is a type of detection device (given that it 'recorded' the event) in which case it could be said that any event/object that causes any type of disturbance to itself or its surroundings will ALWAYS be 'observed' via the effects it has upon its surroundings.

On another note, I once a Sci Fi story a very long time ago about a planet that tried to hide itself from observation in order to protect itself from being changed, does anybody know what it's called?)

Bit of a stretch here , Equinox .

Even if so , the original sonic shockwave would have lost all , if not most of its energy .