UUH FUCK

[ledjohnny]

Ok, my turn.
What's a synonym for thesaurus?

Noep, I got a better one. Define time.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Can't

[memo3300]

Noep, I got a better one. Define time.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Can't

Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects.

[ledjohnny]

Inadequate.

Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars. A simple definition states that "time is what clocks measure".

[Sabb]

does sound exist on mars or anyother planet?

Sound doesn't exist in vacuums (other planets are in a vacuum, space, they don't have the same atmosphere of earth - obviously) because the needed molecules to create sound waves do not exist in them. But on Earth, they do.

[Devie]

Sound doesn't exist in vacuums (other planets are in a vacuum, space, they don't have the same atmosphere of earth - obviously) because the needed molecules to create sound waves do not exist in them. But on Earth, they do.

so what happens when the men on the moon clap their hands or something makes noise like their suit rubbing together due to walking?
They cant hear it?

edit:
if they talk in their suits, no sound will come out from their mouth?

[Boardtech]

Devie, sound waves carries energy by compressing particles (I'm guessing?) if there is no air the on the moon I doubt you will hear another person.

[Sabb]

so what happens when the men on the moon clap their hands or something makes noise like their suit rubbing together due to walking?
They cant hear it?

edit:
if they talk in their suits, no sound will come out from their mouth?

Clapping their hands or rubbing their suit from walking won't create noise in space, because it can't. So no, they won't hear it, because it's not there.
Their suits aren't a vacuum, hence the fact that they wear a suit and oxygen to breath, so they can talk to each other through walkie talkies.

[Cable]

Devie, sound waves carries energy by compressing particles (I'm guessing?) if there is no air the on the moon I doubt you will hear another person.

Which is why they communicated by radio.

[Prox]

Sound doesn't exist in vacuums (other planets are in a vacuum, space, they don't have the same atmosphere of earth - obviously) because the needed molecules to create sound waves do not exist in them. But on Earth, they do.

I do believe that sound exists in every planet with any atmosphere.

[Cable]

On other planets with out an atmosphere, Sound doesn't happen.

Sound is vibrations traveling through the atmosphere.
No atmosphere = no vibrations
No vibrations = no sound

[Sabb]

I do believe that sound exists in every planet with any atmosphere.

Nop, unless it has an atmosphere similar to Earth's, contained, then it's in a vacuum, where the molecules such as in Earth's air, do not exist, and can't create the sound waves.

[coolzeldad]

oo I like this discussion :0

If we take each example and isolate it I think more sense can be made.

Beethoven was a composer of classical music. When he eventually went deaf he was able to perceive music or sound through light and floor vibration.. making many interesting and significant performances.

What we are talking about is perception of the physical surrounding us, whether vibrations, rays, or whatever.

If someone lacks the perception of sight (understanding of changes in light) or the perception of sound (understanding of vibrations at certain recognizable frequencies) we might be able to say that another would be able to perceive and therefore the elements do exist.

However the question comes when every intelligent individual is incapable of any cognitive perception of the physical, whether of sound, touch, smell, sight, taste.

I believe that now it comes clear, that while the physical might exist theoretically, no intelligent individual would have the capability of measuring its existence and therefore its understanding would be lost.

[Sabb]

I have to say, this is probably one of the best discussions we've had on here.

[Jman]

Well no offense cable, but your arguement is immensely flawed.

Think of it like this:

A tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it still make a sound? Yes, it does.

On the other hand, what you're trying to say is that if you were in a room with a deaf person and a regular person, the deaf person wouldn't be able to hear so neither would the regular person.

Also, you saying that sound is perception is actually an arguement for the opposite side.

Perception: The state of being or process of becoming aware of something in such a way.

Someone's perception of something doesn't influence its existance whatsoever, just their awareness of its existance.

Hence, I don't believe there's any way for you to be able to refute the point of perception, which means I believe we've proven sound will exist regardless.

/thread?

[Sabb]

Well no offense cable, but your arguement is immensely flawed.

Think of it like this:

A tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it still make a sound? Yes, it does.

On the other hand, what you're trying to say is that if you were in a room with a deaf person and a regular person, the deaf person wouldn't be able to hear so neither would the regular person.

Also, you saying that sound is perception is actually an arguement for the opposite side. Someone's perception of something doesn't influence its existance whatsoever, just their awareness of its existance.

Hence, I don't believe there's any way for you to be able to refute the point of perception, which means I believe we've proven sound will exist regardless.

/thread?

I agree with your argument completely, but he's arguing more about the definition of sound, it's use in the English language. He's saying that, if NO ONE could hear "sound", that it wouldn't exist due to it being a perception of vibration.