Answer me this.

[whyBish]

I was once told by a physics professor that vibrating air molecules cannot be described as "sound" or "noise" until they come into contact with something that can relay an auditory sensation (ie. eardrums or a microphone).  The way it was described to me was that a tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it produces vibrating air molecules, but if someone is around to hear it it produces sound.

Way off base or just a matter of semantics?
[right][snapback]104325[/snapback][/right]

Sounds like an engineer trying to be clever about the difference between 'sound' and 'noise'

[whyBish]

So go ahead and let some loose :)
[right][snapback]104318[/snapback][/right]

Sure, I've got some nice racial based jokes too :huh:

[DeeBye]

Sounds like an engineer trying to be clever about the difference between 'sound' and 'noise'
[right][snapback]104326[/snapback][/right]

Not really. It was an engineer trying to be clever about the "if a tree falls in the forest" philisophical question, and explaining it in a very convincing way. The difference between "sound" and "noise" is purely subjective.

His main thrust was that nothing can be called "sound" until it interacts with something that can classify it as such. Otherwise it's just vibrating molecules.

His explanation can also be transposed to other sensory stuff. Is something "hot", or is it just composed of excitable molecules? Is the sun "bright", or is it just emitting a lot of photons?

Again, semantics. It really doesn't matter in the end, but I think it's an interesting argument.

[Doc]

Riddle me this Batman...

My new sig. Does it scare you the way it disturbs me?

[DeeBye]

My new sig. Does it scare you the way it disturbs me?
[right][snapback]104329[/snapback][/right]

"It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights – the "right" to education, the "right" to health care, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery – hay and a barn for human cattle." – Alexis De Tocquiville

I live in Canada so I'm a socialist and most likely a communist menace, but I think that anyone arguing against providing basic education, healthcare, food and housing to citizens needs a swift kick in the bum. I am not a slave to my government; it's the other way around.

[Doc]

I live in Canada so I'm a socialist and most likely a communist menace, but I think that anyone arguing against providing basic education, healthcare, food and housing to citizens needs a swift kick in the bum.  I am not a slave to my government; it's the other way around.
[right][snapback]104332[/snapback][/right]

I hope for your sake, that is true.

I however, absolutely refuse to believe in the idea. No offense, Canada is not a gun friendly country. And people with out guns are subjects. A society armed with guns and the ability to have their voices heard at any cost are a democracy. They are citizens.

My way of life and your way of life are very different, and we are of different generations. I mean absolutely no disrespect.

That said, there are some bones in my craw. Why does Bush believe that every Iraqi should have government healthcare but here at home we have no such thing... There is a flaw somewhere in that.

[DeeBye]

No offense, Canada is not a gun friendly country.
[right][snapback]104333[/snapback][/right]

Canada likes guns just fine. We need something to fend off rogue polar bear and sasquatch attacks in rural areas. I don't ever think I've seen a home outside of an urban area that was not sporting either a shotgun or a rifle above the fireplace mantle. I read somewhere that Canada has a higher per capita gun ownership rate than the US.

I live in an urban Canadian city and I don't own a gun. I don't see the need. I keep a 5 Iron next to my front door just in case. If I ever moved to a rural setting, you can bet your sweet ass I'd buy the most badass shotgun and rifle ever made.

My way of life and your way of life are very different, and we are of different generations. I mean absolutely no disrespect.

I also mean no disrespect, but your way of life is very different from pretty much everyone elses.

[Doc]

Canada likes guns just fine.  We need something to fend off rogue polar bear and sasquatch attacks in rural areas.  I don't ever think I've seen a home outside of an urban area that was not sporting either a shotgun or a rifle above the fireplace mantle.  I read somewhere that Canada has a higher per capita gun ownership rate than the US.

I live in an urban Canadian city and I don't own a gun.  I don't see the need.  I keep a 5 Iron next to my front door just in case.  If I ever moved to a rural setting, you can bet your sweet ass I'd buy the most badass shotgun and rifle ever made.
I also mean no disrespect, but your way of life is very different from pretty much everyone elses.
[right][snapback]104334[/snapback][/right]

And pistols?

Yeah. The bigfoot thing is a big problem. I keep the S&W 500 around just in case of mastadon or wooly mammoth attacks. I mean, you could be sitting at the dinner table eating and **BAM** you become the next statistic.

I like Canada. It is one of the few places I would consider living. Probably way out in the middle of nowhere maybe. But I do not deal well with the cold, so I would need to avoid the tundra. Maybe some of those nice rain forest islands off of the Pacific Northwest Coast.

[SwissMercenary]

Maybe some of those nice rain forest islands off of the Pacific Northwest Coast.
[right][snapback]104335[/snapback][/right]

About the only thing they have in common with the "Rain Forest" that you are probably imagining, is that there's rain, and a forest.

Well, that's not entirely true. There's, well, 'a' rain. Once per year. Lasts oh, from October to July.



That's Sunny Vancouver, and this place's a desert compared to the islands. Photo taken from the BC Trades & Conventions center, if I'm not mistaken.

And, Doc, I don't know about how it hails from where you come from (Or, rather, I do. Very colourful descriptions, you have), but we aren't living in slavery here, just on the basis that we're forking out some 30-40 odd percent in income taxes, if in a high income bracket. Just so you know.

[Guest]

You really believe a semantics issue makes an interseting argument?

Personally I find it to be the bane of good converation.




Anyway here is the primary definition from Dictonary Onlnine.

1. 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.
2. Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.
3. The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium.
4. Such sensations considered as a group.

Sound could be defined either way, but in the context of the question its obviously the first definition, the question being asked, of itself clearly precludes the 3rd meaning.

[DeeBye]

You really believe a semantics issue makes an interseting argument?
[right][snapback]104339[/snapback][/right]

Sure, why not?

[ShadowHM]

I however, absolutely refuse to believe in the idea. No offense, Canada is not a gun friendly country. And people with out guns are subjects. A society armed with guns and the ability to have their voices heard at any cost are a democracy. They are citizens.

I respectfully disagree. I am a citizen. My voice is heard - possibly all too often, if you were to ask my elected representatives. :) My lack of guns has made absolutely no difference to my ability to have my voice heard and my opinions solicited by those elected to do the bidding of the people.

My way of life and your way of life are very different, and we are of different generations. I mean absolutely no disrespect.

Doc, your way of life is very different than mine, and we are of the same generation. I don't see your point there. Your refusal to believe in any particular idea is not a persuasive reason for any of us to follow you. No offense, but you do have some whacky notions. :)

[Doc]

That picture is beautiful.

I know all about the Pacific Coast Rain Forest. I spent years living there. I have no illusions as to what it is, or isn't. The rain forest outside of Seattle is a wonderful place, and is a place I could see my self being happy living there. I imagine nothing.

Thanks for the photo though. That made my day. I'd shoot somebody in the ass right about now for some rain. Stupid drought.

Lord, please, make it rain here like it does in that picture.

[Doc]

I respectfully disagree.  I am a citizen.  My voice is heard - possibly all too often, if you were to ask my elected representatives.    :)  My lack of guns has made absolutely no difference to my ability to have my voice heard and my opinions solicited by those elected to do the bidding of the people.
Doc, your way of life is very different than mine, and we are of the same generation.    I don't see your point there.  Your refusal to believe in any particular idea is not a persuasive reason for any of us to follow you.  No offense, but you do have some whacky notions.    :)
[right][snapback]104347[/snapback][/right]

With out my wacky notions, I would not be Doc. I'd be somebody else. A different person. And that means wearing some strangers underpants, which I find distressing.

**Shrugs**

[Occhidiangela]

I respectfully disagree.   I am a citizen.  My voice is heard - possibly all too often, if you were to ask my elected representatives.    :)   My lack of guns has made absolutely no difference to my ability to have my voice heard and my opinions solicited by those elected to do the bidding of the people.
     :)
[right][snapback]104347[/snapback][/right]

Those fine points mean that you trust politicians, and your system, to act within a certain set of bounds. At the moment, the trust has not been substantively betrayed, the odd irritating regulation here and there aside. That social equilibrium may be due to a set of norms that have spread throughout all levels of your social system. If that sustains, huzzah! :D Good news.

What is your plan when the trust is betrayed, when the system has stress put on its seams and it cracks? It can happen, simpely because people are human. Having a back up plan is a useful posture to adopt.

Occhi

[Doc]

Those fine points mean that you trust politicians, and your system, to act within a certain set of bounds.  At the moment, the trust has not been substantively betrayed, the odd irritating regulation here and there aside.  This may possibly due to a set of norms that have spread throughout all levels of your social system.  If that sustains, Huzzah!    :D Good news.

What is your plan when the trust is betrayed, when the system has stress put on its seams?  It can happen, simpely because people are human.  Having a back up plan is a useful posture to adopt.

Occhi
[right][snapback]104354[/snapback][/right]

Thank you for making all my paranoia sound perfectly reasonable with those well chosen words.

Sorry, I could never ever live in a place that did not allow me to stockpile guns and ammo. When all else fails, vote with lead. People say it will never happen... But it has happened. The American Revolution. Liberty and freedom are fickle, and even now, we are slipping in to dictatorship. Our system has failed, as much as it grieves me to say. Guns ensure that the average man that could do little else, has a chance to do something... Because evil wins when good men do nothing.

[ShadowHM]

What is your plan when the trust is betrayed, when the system has stress put on its seams and it cracks?  It can happen, simpely because people are human.  Having a back up plan is a useful posture to adopt.

Occhi
[right][snapback]104354[/snapback][/right]

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. :) A sufficiency of that vigilance will obviate the need for vigilantes. :P

[Doc]

Shadow, all the vigilance in the world does no good when you do not have the arms required to deal with unjust police and militia putting you in your place. How bout those poor kids in China, during the Tiananmen Square incident, dealing with those tanks? People with out guns are all to easily put in their place. And that, in my mind, is what seperates a subject from a citizen. A government that withholds guns and ammo from it's citizens does not live in fear of reprisal. I personally, could never live that way. Live free or die.

[Occhidiangela]

You really believe a semantics issue makes an interseting argument?

Personally I find it to be the bane of good converation.
Anyway here is the primary definition from Dictonary Onlnine.

   1. 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.
   2. Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.
   3. The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium.
   4. Such sensations considered as a group.

Sound could be defined either way, but in the context of the question its obviously the first definition, the question being asked, of itself clearly precludes the 3rd meaning.
[right][snapback]104339[/snapback][/right]

The definition is a bit lacking in technical accuracy. Liquid and fluid are not physically equivalent terms: liquid is, as related to sound, a subset of "fluid." The definition fails to spell out that sound, as most often experienced, is propagated in a fluid. (Air is a fluid. So is water.) Granted "liquid" and "fluid" are similar terms for the great unwashed, but I am being picky with a dictionary since it is a dictionary. Precision in definition aids discussion more than it hinders it, IMO. Your spelling out the propoerties of sound was thus a good idea. :)

Occhi

[Rhydderch Hael]

Pardon the amateur:

Doesn't observation define reality?
[right][snapback]104316[/snapback][/right]

Does not oblivion define existence without observation (or even awareness)?