If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Incorrect, thats "our" interpretation of sound, sounds as you said is just vibrations/waves in the air so it is emitted, the fact that you didnt listen to it just means that you a fucking faggot and egocentrical af if you think everything revolves around your fucking soyim ear

but if you sound under water there is no air that's why in space no one can hear you scream

The stimulus is an interpretation, you fool. There are vibrations hitting your eardrum that your brain turns into "sound".

Yeah, there is water that vibrations can travel through. The reason you can't hear anything in space is because it's a vacuum, there is nothing for the vibrations to travel through.

My bad, it doesnt "necesarily" have to be air, but it must happen in a medium that allows to transmit pulses or vibration trough (welol pulses if we are talking about telecomms trought cable though)

when I get my hands on your lying bitch mouth they will hear your screams from space

Sorry for triggering you with facts that go against your narrative.

do NOT use the "n" word around me. I find it problematic

Sound is a product of being an animal that has ears. It only exists in the animal kingdom. When I say sound is just vibrations, I'm not claiming that sound and vibrations are the same thing, i'm saying that sound is just a interpretation of vibrations. The only thing that exists in reality is vibrations.

3deep5me niggerfaggot

calm down soyboi

I only eat red meet. you will pay for your loose tongue

...

This has officially become an I HATE YOU thread!!!

No no no. the stimulus is what TRIGGERS the interpretation.

actually you don't hear with your ears, you hear with your BRAIN!

the stimulus is the vibrations hitting your ears. This causes the brain to turn this into sound.

that's why in the original Bladerunner the replicants were deaf. no brain - no sound

the replicants had brains, you dumb fag

you obviously never saw it. btw I'm talking about the original, not that new shit with Driver

Technically, you don't sense anything with the associated organ. Does flavor not exist until someone starts licking it?

Ok, let's take this example:
you have a light sensor, particularly an LDR. The higher the light level is, the less resistance it has. You put one of these in series with a constant value resistor and apply a voltage to it. A processor measures the voltage drop across this constant value resistor and stores that voltage as a set of transistors turning on/off to denote a binary number.

What is the stimulus?
Does light not exist until it's being sensed?

I hate the new bladerunner and I am talking about the original. The replicants had manufactured organs, they had brains as well as eyes, teeth, ears etc… Just because they were manufactured doesn't mean that they didn't exist.

Light is photons, it's a particle. Comparing light with sound is just retarded.

actually it does because they were REPLICANTS. ie; replicated humans. duh. a computer can't actually "hear" just because you put a microphone on it. smh… some people are so stupid!

yes it does you idiot, Sound is not the interpretation of vibrations in the air, it's the vibrations themselves.

replicants aren't computers. They have actual organs.

All elementary particles are waves in their associated field.

No it isn't. If you look up the definition of sound it doesn't say "vibrations that travel through matter".

Also, the question can be raised as to whether a photon becomes light only when someone sees it.

All of the same logic applies.

No, it's a fucking particle. It exists as a material object, you don't have to have eyes to bring it into reality, it just exists. Sound on the other hand is a sense, you need eardrums and a brain to interpret the vibrating matter that it travels through. It's apples and fucking oranges.

Yes, the photon hits your eyes and your brain interprets it as light.
The particles that make up a sound wave are marterial objects. You don't have to have ears to bring it into reality, they just fucking exist. Light on the other hand is a sense, you need eyes and a brain to interpret the oscillations in the electromagnetic field that it travels through. It's apples and fucking apples.

lol.. "Sound waves" aren't particles. The vibrations manipulate the matter (air) and create sound in your head. If sound was a particle, you would be able to hear it in space.

everyone in this thread needs to kill themselves immediately

That doesn't make the vibrations any less real faggot.

sure thing Mr Science. smh

vibrations and sound are two different things. If you had an IQ over 80 you would realize that I was making this claim.

ugh. you're stupidity truly knows no bounds. Replicants, if they were made of tissue would simply be clones. You seriously did not see the movie did you?

vibrations of photonic waves are what produces sight dumbass

proof?

Source:
google.co.uk/search?num=100&newwindow=1&q=Sound&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFmZO-6IXZAhUhiOAKHaFVA4AQBQgmKAA&biw=1600&bih=779
source google uses:
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sound

Yeah, even the dictionary proves my point. It takes an animal to interpret sound. Thanks for proving my point.

I can't take this retard back-and-forth anymore, let me answer this and end this cuckshed fire of a thread.
The entire debate revolves around how you define sound, since it's a word that has multiple possible definitions. Definition b here requires sensation and perception of radiant mechanical energy for something to be considered a "sound". Definition c does not require anything to actually perceive or otherwise interact with the sound, it just defines sound by the physical nature of sound. Definition a is too vague to even really be a useful definition in this case, since it just drags us back into a dark hole of more multiple definitions of "auditory" and "impression".
So, take your pick. If you like definition b, then no, it doesn't make a sound. If you like definition c, then yes, it does

no it doesn't you're making a made up interpretation that has nothing to do with reality, like all other retards do, can doesn't mean must. it means can. don't change the meaning of words.

wrong. space is a vacuum and so there are no particles in a vacuum.

Do me a favor kid, read the definition that you just posted. Read it very carefully and try to take it in.

The sound of a childs hymen tearing open?

Then how can you see stars in space?

I know you're just trolling at this point but how do satellites exist in space? They are particles.

you can't you fucking idiot. why do you think they call it the "darkness of space"?? my god you're stupid

Here's yet another definition, consistent with the Webster's "c" definition. The key word here is can. According to this definition, sound is the vibrations travelling through a medium which can be heard (not must be heard).

I'd recommend you do the same because you're very obviously changing the meaning of the words you just read. Again, pay close attention to the word "can" before "be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear."

ps: thank you for calling me a kid, kids are cute.

MODS MODS MODS

it depends on what the definition of "is" is

typical libtard

waves are made up of particles retard.

I did. It CAN be heard by animals that have eardrums. It doesn't suggest that sound just exists as a material object, it suggests that it is interpreted by a being. Therefore, it is a sense and doesn't actually exist in reality.

particles are made of waves idiot

Space is not a vacuum, it's a tenuous plasma carrying the interplanetary medium (e.g. solar wind). It is also structured, forming the Heliospheric current sheet. Please just stop, I can't take this shit anymore

It is like definition of a solid object that CAN be held in hand but it doesn't mean that it MUST be held in hand to be a solid object.

Nice bait btw.

It depends on what waves you are talking about. Waves at the beach are made of particles, sure. "Sound waves" are vibrations that manipulate matter around them, which are then interpreted by your eardrums and brain. Sound is not a particle, it's a sense.

ISN'T IT ALL SO VERY CUTE, WHEN THE HIGHLY RETARDED PRETEND TO TALK LIKE THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ON ABOUT?

It doesn't exist as a material object, it exists as momentum pushing particles in the air. If you don't know basic physics stop trying to discuss stupid shit on 8 chan and go back to middle school…

Exactly. The vibrations are heard by animals.

especially when the debate has already been answered multiple times

sound is the wave of particles in the air.
Again, we can have this same argument about light.
A photon is a particle, sure, but is it light before it hits your eyes?

if it isn't then how does a camera work?

how does a microphone work?

Lol, sound is manipulating the particles in the air. There isn't just some "wave particle" that flows through everything.

by converting mechanical vibrational energy into electrical signals via manipulation of a membrane

True, there are many different particles which constitute a sound wave. But does something being an emergent property of many things mean it doesn't exist?

Semantics. It is a wave that moves throught the medium that is air composed of particles.

the wave is the differential pressure of the particles making up a vibrating medium

Yes, exactly. Thanks for agreeing with me. My point is that the "wave" doesn't contain particles, it simple manipulates them.

simply*

well a camera works either via an array of photostransistors which pick up certain frequencies of oscillation in the electromagnetic spectrum and convert that into a voltage value at a certain point in the array or, with older cameras, uses these oscillations as the energy source for chemical reactions.

what you define as "light" is just a small band of EMF. You can't see microwaves, does that mean they're not particles? You can't see gamma rays, does that mean they're not particles?

I'm not saying they're not particles. I'm saying they wouldn't be light if you depending on your definition.

no, light is always a particle whether it's perceived or not. Just like Xrays or gamma rays or microwaves are particles whether you sense them or interact with them or not.

But the wave, as a phenomena, has a direction of propagation with said phenomena spreading over the medium. That's why we say that wave moves.

It is like saying that shadow moves and no, shadow does not move as it is not an object, it is just another space on the surface that is blocked from incoming light but we say that "shadow moves" because whole phenomena is changing location (or is propagating).

As I said, it is all about semantics.

If you are blind, are you incapable of getting skin cancer?

I'll stop when YOU stop spreading you're ((jewish lies))

obviously you dumass

He didn't say it wouldn't be a particle, it wouldn't be a "light" without an observer. Just radiation.

The photon is the particle. I never even once contested that.
But, if we define light by the same metric you define sound, then you need an eye for light to exist.

If you are deaf, are you incapable of having your erdrums torn?

then he would be wrong.

why in the fuck would you do that though? They're not even remotely the same thing.

No, it's not. Show me one scientist that ever existed that claimed vibrations are matter.

You are again comparing photons with vibrations. Shadows are the lack of photons, a material object. Vibrations simply manipulate matter, they don't cast shadows because they aren't a material object.

yes becuz deaf people don't have eardrums. that's why their deaf

They're both senses.
I'm saying sound IS the vibrations in the air. You're saying it is your brain's interpretations of said vibrations.

To counter this, I am comparing it to a definition of light which constitutes your brain's interpretation of the photons (or oscillations in the EM field which is more technically accurate). You fail to see the similarities between you defining light as the photons themselves and me defining sound as the airwaves themselves. Probly autism tbh

Yes they usually do. The eardrum is not the only part of the system that can fail.

Holy shit, it's honestly very simple.
"Light", even if defined as "visible light" is just a particular band of EMF the human eyes are sensitive to. You don't need to have it reach your retina for it to be considered light. If you turn on a lightbulb in a room you're not in, that lightbulb is still shooting out EMF and that EMF is light.
EMF is made of particles, whether it's in the visible band or not, so all EMF, including "light" is made of particles. Period.
Sound isn't a thing that exists separately from the environment, it just describes mechanical vibrations (e.g. pressure differentials) in a medium. Period. That's it. If no one is around to perceive the pressure changes, the pressure still changes. Whether that pressure change is "sound" depends on which of the several definitions you want to use. That's it.

no vision is a sense. light is EMF. see

this

Comparing "sound" to light is nigger-tier logic

look "dude" and I am using the term loosely here, I am an actual full head doctor, so I KNOW how this works. I'm not some child like you trying to sound smart on the internet. kys

that's like me saying sound isn't a sense, hearing is.
By the way, this post draws the same exact conclusion as me:

Yeah, you are right, but I don't know why you go thermonuclear over layman's terms. As about "sound waves" I heard many scientists explain, even to kids, how these waves "move" yet I'm sure none of them was suggesting that a wave is a solid object.

Fuck, didn't mark your comment…

I don't care who you are. Deaf people can still tear eardrums.

That's correct IF AND ONLY IF you subscribe to Websters definition "C". That would be incorrect if you subscribe to Websters definition "B".

omg. I am so done with idiots on Holla Forums

because i'm a sensory systems neuroscientist who studies this for a living and it pokes at my autism to hear people talk like this
exactly, the kind of arguments being made here are operating on a child's level of understanding of physics

Oh, so it depends on your definition, does it?
Man, I wish someone would have come up with that idea nearly 100 posts ago.

are you saying they can't?

It's based on science. Sound is a sense that animals have. They are able to pick up vibrations in the air that cause their brain to interpret it as sound.

Yes, im the one who made this point 100 posts ago

Well, I can't blame you.

...

Technically, i made it first.

why are you still here? Your obvious trolling is getting a bit tedious tbh fam

Nice bait OP, but if you're not baiting and you're just actually retarded. Let me fill you in.

The meaning of "sound" is irrelevant. You can mix and match the meaning of words all you like but the reality is that the vibration occurred.

If you want to get even more depthy in the mechanical sense, It's not just the brain doing all the work, the sound is a vibration that has to hit your drum first, the drum is pushed back and forth which is felt by electric signal, so you could say that a sound "doesn't exist" so long as the decibel is too low for human input, but the sound still exists whether you want to think it does or not.

Now….if you really want to get into metaphysics or the occult, you could argue that the tree doesn't exist whatsoever, nor does the brain observing it, even when it is being observed. You could also argue that the brain is listening to the vibrations, and translating them for yet another observer, but I'll save that for a thread that isn't shit.

Thanks.
t. Knower

Let me ask you this:
a 60khz frequency is well beyond human hearing range. Cats can hear it just fine though. If we're siting alone in a room with this frequency playing on a speaker, is it not sound? Does it become sound when the cat walks in?

You couldn't have been more wrong if you tried.

Thanks man, I'm glad you agree with me. Sound is a interpreted by animals with eardrums.

No, it doesn't exist. It's a vibration. Eardrums that can't pick up certain vibrations doesn't prove anything. You are conflating sound (a sense) with vibrations.

prove me wrong then.

fair enough though, technically, i made the point better :^)

Forgot to say that the vibrations are still hitting the ear, they are just too weak for an electric impulse, etc.

This.

What's your point? You're basically confirming that sound is just a sense.

no - sound is the vibrations. Hearing is what requires an agent. It makes a sound, it doesnt create a perception of hearing, u mongoloid

mods please nuke this septic tank of a thread

Unless they are deaf. A machine can also pick up sound well beyond animal range. As far as I am concerned, if the raw data exists then the translation of the data is irrelevant, if you want to get more into the occult side of things, there is a constant observer of all things in "reality".

You're not wrong…or right, depending on observational perspective. I suggest you take psychoactives and contemplate on it. It would be a fun time.

Also, tip from an old troll… If you're going to bait this hard It's better to leave the OP up and then move along, just lurk. Bait threads aren't very good if you keep popping back up in them when ID is turned on.

...

thefreedictionary.com/sound

I think then it would come down to the actual definition of "sound" whether its the action of the particles vibration traveling through space or the fact that its interpreted by something biological or artificial

see
Sound is only achieved after it enters a human organ. Vibrations aren't sound.

...

dude just stop. it's been pointed out at least a dozen times that "sound" can be defined two ways so the whole conversation just hinges on which defintion you want to subscribe to. just fucking stop

Even I'm starting to rage…

Where? I've been in this thread the entire time and I never saw this. Maybe you can direct me to the post. Sound is a sense, it doesn't exist in reality. I'm sorry that it hurts your feelings.

I don't expect you to be educated in quantum mechanics but at least your bait attempt was better than OP's.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

see

"vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear."

You are just trying to muddy the water by adding a bunch of semantic bullshit. Show me one definition that says sound isn't a vibration that manipulates matter and is interpreted by an eardrum.

I don't even get this logic. So you're saying that if a animal can't hear certain tones, that means that sound exists objectively?

I already did. Definition "C" in the image I already showed you.

>thefreedictionary.com/sound
1.
a. 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.

"mechanical radiant energy". It's a vibration that moves mechanical radiant energy. The vibrations aren't energy. This definition actually contradicts itself.

The end of the definition is empirical

Does "capable" mean it is doing that thing at this very moment?
I am capable of smoking crack. Does that mean I'm currently smoking crack?

Are you capable of having a vagina? No, because you are a man. Are you capable of doing crack? Sure, it could happen in the future. More semantics and bullshit.

Not a good argument. He could have a vagina in the future.

/thread since the OP

No, it's a inverted dick.

Sound is a sense, vibrations are not. Keep trying to pretend that sound just exists everywhere, like it's just a cloud floating around full of music and voices. Fucking materialist.

My whole point is this is a semantic argument.
Just because something's capable of something doesn't mean it doing that something has anything to do with its existence.
Sound is CAPABLE of being heard. That does not mean it IS being heard for the entirety of its existence.

Fuck I hate this site. I mean, the guy is obviously trolling but this is Holla Forums… Why would you ban him for trolling on Holla Forums? That's fucking ridiculous.

If the vibration exists, then so does the sound.

vibrations in the air vibrate the eardrum and your brain interprets it as sound.

To troll the troll, obviously. Mods have a good sense of humor

>Created a new 1-hour ban on Holla Forums (#43555) with reason: If an OP gets banned in a thread and there is no one around to see it, did it make a post?No, it doesn't, you retard. bans are an interpretation of posting on a board. "Posting" only exists to anons that are not banned.

Typical reddit/4chan logic. I mean, if the mods did a funban for 5 seconds, I could agree. In this case, the mods wanted to silence this guy for some reason. I'm guessing one of the anons in here was a mod fighting with him. There's no other reason why he would just get banned. It's not like he was breaking the rules or anything.

If a ban is short enough that OP doesn't see it is it actually a Ban?

No, it doesn't, you retard.

You are on imageboard… what did you expect? Your disappointment is wholly your fault.

Uh, yeah it is, you fucking dipshit. The ban message is still there.

This tbh. I'd understand if we were on Holla Forums or something but its Holla Forums. Go be a snowflake somewhere else.

What if the mod bans without a ban message and the OP didn't see it and the board log was disabled… then did OP really get banned? No.

Holla Forums is run by ex-redditors and kikes. I hate this site, I just come here to shitpost.

You are the only one crying over mod ban, that makes you special I think. Oh well, THIS snowflake goes to crack cold one and hit the bed.

I think you quoted the wrong user. I am not

I am

What if a jew got gassed in a gas chamber and no one was around to see it? Would the holocaust still have happened?

If 1 Jew got gassed and nobody was around to see it it's the same as 6 million Jews.

how the fuck does double slit relate to biblical contradictions?

The fact that vpn's exist basically negates any ban here. There isn't even a rule against ban evasion.
Bans serve 2 purposes:
1. to keep the feds happy when CP is posted
2. to call someone a faggot.

Getting banned does not matter here.

tbh I'm eventually going to run out of IPs
QQ

If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one around to feel it, does it make a vibration?

Of course it does. Vibrations move matter and your body can feel that. It's not sound though. Sound is a animal sense.

cookie?

The most
Subtle Loss

Sure, but the idea behind that old phrase is to put your attention on what is happening at the current moment and place ~not spending cycles on thinks that don't matter.

The statement actually has no logical explanation, it is designed to point you to a state of mind that can't be described in words. A lot of the core Buddhist stuff is like that, because their goal state literally can't be explained in words.

Just like the red pill, you can't possibly convince someone what the Matrix is when they are stuck inside it. Buddhist phrases like this just point the way to the exit. Just like someone pointing at the moon, he's not saying "hey look at my finger"

NOOKIE

wookie

bookie

#S?:NOU`)