The age old philosophical question...

Yes it does make a sound. Just because no one is there to hear it doesn't mean it didn't make a sound.

Yes it does. I'm wondering, why wouldn't it make a sound just 'cause nobody is there to hear it?

As a tree falls pressure is still exerted in the fibres of the trunk causing snapping, breaking and creaking, air is moved causing that whooshing sound in the leaves and impact still occurs.

It's not even in doubt in my mind. Animals can hear as well.

Ismail: Besides the fact that this question is "an age old philosophical" one, what lead you to ask it? Is there a doubt in your mind that the tree would make a sound? Just curious on what your outlook is.

If there is a tree there is surrounding wildlife, of which nearly every form has the ability to comprehend pressure changes and sound. Something will hear it.

Yes, sound is dictating by sine waves.

The only thing that this question truly insinuates is if a physical reaction is triggered, and no one is there to witness it, are the other “dominos” (physical reactions) triggered.

The answer is that OF COURSE if a tree falls and no one was there to witness it the laws of physics are still enforced. There need be no witness to ensure that they are followed. If you come across a tree and it is fallen, you will see the debris around it, you will see the end result of its fall, so why would the other physical reactions (such as creating a sine wave that can be "heard" by human ears) not have taken place?

A sine wave is a series of vibrations that can be picked up on depending on which frequencies a species can hear, for instance dolphins and whales can hear higher frequencies than humans, also dogs. Every physical action creates a sine wave, some larger than others. A tree falling would create a large and low wave, which would be audible to all the species who were around to witness it, whether they be human or not.

This "age old" question, Ismail, was asked in a time that scientists did not know much of physics, and certainly didn’t have the equipment to measure sine waves or understand them. It is redundant in current times, and is one of the great mysteries that has been solved with our intellectual evolution, as well as with understanding of different types of physics.

Your answer to the contradictory answer, that if a tree falls and no one was there to witness it, is somewhat reaching, just because the only technicality you are hitting on is that not a human being was there to "hear" the wave.

That doesnt matter, the wave was still created, the fact that no one was there to interpret the sound doesnt change that the reaction would have continued by the natural laws of physics to create the "sound" in our eardrums."

It just depends on how far you want to take the reaction.

AND, I would also like to ask you where you took your information from. It doesnt seem like you wrote those replys yourself, and as this is a site dedicated to literature, would like to inform you that you need to cite your sources.

It's not that the answers are wrong, they just hinge on semantic technicality.

The same reactions are caused.

Does sound exist at all, or is it just a figment of your imagination?

Ismail: Cut the attitude. Copying and pasting or practically doing so is not studying or getting informed, it's plagiarizing intellectual property.

Some of us actually write the replys ourselves, and understand the subjects.

Also, rhetorical doesnt mean that whatever answer we come up with is true, in this case, the argument is the same on both sides. Just semantic.

Rhetorical:

1. Relating to the skill of using language effecticely and persuasively

2. Relating to or using language that is elaborate or fine sounding but insincere

Bret: We may never be able to understand that. The way that physics sees our existance, it is not a figment of our imaginations, but a neurologic reaction operating off of vibrations, which causes us to "hear" sound. However, it could very well be a figment os our imaginations.

You're talking about the physical interpretation of varying pressure. Which is why I asked my philosophical question. If it is purely a matter of interpreting vibrations is sound all in the mind?

In reality it comes down to what is audible. And regardless of what anything is doing that involves vibration and pressure change then it will fall into the audible range of something or someone regardless of whether that something is within audible range. So in every case it makes a sound, like it or not.

Radio: The radio transforms the sine waves into an audible frequency, and omits them, and no ones eardrum is there to percieve them.

Ismail: "I suggest that you do not underestimate me, because frankly we know nothing of each other, to say that we know each intellect."

That's not a grammatically correct sentence, but other than that, I'm not underestimating you. I'm simply observing you.

"I'm not underestimating you. I'm simply observing you."

Makes perfect sense in every way.

I am not estimating your ability to do anything, I just observe.

How can I be "under" estimating you if I am not guessing what you're capable of or judging you? I am just trying to keep the integrity of intellectual property alive and kicking.

People make observations, right?

If one observes and shows the resulting conlusions they are observations, so what's the beef?

How did I interfere? I can relay observations and request more information on which to base my conclusions.

Refrain from demonstrating idiocy and I wont be forced to observe it.

I was correct in my observations. It didnt come from you directly. Because you wont give us the links that you got the information from, there are no more conclusions to draw.

If it was insulting to your intelligence to ask for you to cite your sources, I recommend you talk to lesser intelligent people than myself. Intelligent people must get their knowledge from somewhere, and understand the importance of citing sources. The difference is that your posts seemed paraphrased and based upon someone elses conclusions, not yours. I still stand by my inquiry.

You're demonstrating idiocy over semantics. You often do that, that's another observation.

You only gave credit after much badgering though.

http://www.cranialspew.com/

You'll have to be more specific as the site is closed.

"Well duh, if i was to write that and claim it as my own, that would be stealing,"

You didnt write it, and you never said you didnt write it. I had to inquire.

"i am giving credit where credit is due."

After you were asked for a source, and you still have not given an exact link or the name of the person whom you based your ideas on.

"You insinuate rather than observe, my dear"

I did not insinuate, I said straight out what I thought, and it was a conclusion based upon observation. And last time I checked, I wasn't your dear.

"Again don't confuse the two."

It doesnt appear I'm the one who needs clarification.

If you had given that cite for a college paper, you would have failed and been accused of plagiarism. That was a weak source.

Well this certainly got off-topic.

Nonetheless, while reading over the posts, I tend to agree with the one (can't remember who posted it. It was probably Kaitlin) that states that just because there is no one around to witness these laws of physics, doesn't mean they don't take place.

As for the second definition of "sound;" I feel it is more of a further explanation to what a "sound" is: something percieved by the ears. I mean, what else do most people associate with sound? Something you hear with your ears. I mean, the layman doesn't associate sound as a bunch of sine waves and physical laws, and things like that. Webster is there to help us, more or less; not confuse us. Everything you hear, is a sound, not ONLY the things you hear are sounds. I believe that is more or less what definition #2 is stating.

As for you, Ismail, I can tell when something is really yours or not. Your posts seem to be littered with constant run-ons, and random punctuation marks. Some of your posts here do not seem to correspond with your normal posts. As my History teacher always told us: "If you cheat, and you DON'T want to get caught, at least make it LOOK like you didn't cheat."
Paraphrased? Perhaps. However, we cannot be sure until you post the direct link to your sources. Even then, it's easy to copy-and-paste sentence portions, and change a word here or there.
Not accusing you of plagiarism, just in the same boat as Kaitlin: wondering...

~Ciao Lipton

Ismail:

"ofcourse i did not know i was plagerizing merely trying to prove my point"

I find it INCREDIBLY hard to see how you - a supposed writer - do not know what plagiarism is... Yes, you may have had the same ideas, but still copying their work is plagiarism, no matter WHAT your view is. Copying someone else's work is plagiarism, no matter WHY you do it.

~Ciao Lipton

it depends if it hits the ground or the bear under the tree

Lip, you can feel sound as well.

I know of a deaf percussion player who said she could feel the sounds. Also Beethoven grew progressively morre deaf and worked out notes by repeatedly hammering keys with his head touching the piano so he could perceive the pitch/tone.

Also you can feel sound coming from speakers.

There's nothing quite like standing next to a giant speaker at a concert and have the music literally move you!

Firstly, Ismail, I dont mind the use of endearing pet names when they arent used with a condescending and demeaning undertone of sarcasm. I actually welcome them.

Secondly, you still havent cited the exact source of information or named the person. You have only admitted to plagiarizing it.

And, observation doesnt have to take years. My conclusion was absolutely and 100% correct.

We're not arguing over science.

We're arguing over what constitutes plagiarism, and not citing a source (which implies that the ideas and/ or writing was your own) is plagiarism.

That's my only qualm.

I understand the basic sound shit, I feel no need to argue over it.

OK.

What's your opinion?

Ismail, what part of this are you not getting?

CITE your damn source, at this point all you have admitted to is plagiarizing and have not cleared it up.

Give us a website and an author, an exact URL from which you got the information, and quotes (without quotation marks, tsk, tsk).

You KNEW that it wasnt yours, and you knew that your posts gave the impression that they WERE yours, you just didnt expect someone to call you on it. Deny it all you want. No doubt, you will, instead of taking accountability for your actions like you should.

You also went back through and edited at least one of your posts, if not more, to make yourself look better.

I am not boastful over myself either, I have not mentioned myself at all in this thread. YOU have tried to make it seem like I did something wrong, when instead all I did was try to maintain literary integrity throughout the conversation, again, diverting the attention from yourself instead of just admitting what you did was wrong and sorting it out.

AND, again, my conclusion was absolutely correct, because the only conclusion I drew was that you took information from a different site and did not write your responses totally by yourself. How was I WRONG? I didnt state any OPINIONS, as you said I did, I stated an OBSERVATION, AND I was correct! Where in the hell do you get off saying I did something wrong? This is a literary site, and we hate plagiarizers. It's not just about poetry. I have absolutely no respect for you at this point, so make whatever indifferent allegations you see fit, but in the end, YOU'RE in the wrong, "my dear," not me.

Learn, Ismail, dont argue. You're clearly in the wrong, and there's nothing you can do to turn this around on me that will change that fact, dont demonstrate idiocy.

GIVE US an exact URL, an author, and STOP editing your posts to make it look different than it is, you plagiarist.

Ismail:

Using someone else's work, without saying that it's not your work, is the same as claiming it as your own. Sure, you later admitted it, but AFTER the question was raised.

~Ciao Lipton

Ismail: CITE your source.

And I'm glad respect isnt what you're looking for, because that's not what you're recieving from anyone at this point, also, we have established that it's another persons work.

What is your aversion to giving us a URL and giving the author CREDIT for HIS or HER work? Just admitting to this doesnt fix the problem.

Idiot: "Lol, do you see me care Kaitlin, i don't want a person to respect me"

and then you say: "Kaitlin, i think you have been mistaken, i said that i do not need your respect. Get it right. *Sigh*"

"A PERSON" is not ME particularly. I DO get things right because I pay an ounce of attention, kind of like I know when work is original or not, and also kind of like how I QUOTE people when the work is not my own.

The link you gave us was dead, and not an exact URL, nor did you name an author.

That's such a bullshit excuse, he at least has an alias just like we do.

And it's not foolish to notice that, it's a correct conclusion based on observation of the general posts you make. Dont be a dumbass just because I called you out on your plagiarism, you already wont cite a proper source.

Ismail: Just because you state that I look like a fool doesnt mean to anyone with common sense that I do, quite frankly, I dont give a shit what you think of me, because I dont think highly of you, especially not after this incident, but honestly, for a person who claims to have a more highly inclined mentality than myself, why didnt you put quotations around QUOTES?

And what I called "bullshit" on was your reason for not giving us a DIRECT URL and name of an author. You DONT have a logical answer for your actions, you merely half admitted to doing something wrong and wont take full responsibility like the intellectual person you claim to be, dont make this what it's not.

Ok, please will the pair of you just stow it now?

Ismail, you were wrong, just say it and close the subject. The more you continue to argue like a child, pointing and laughing like Nelson from the Simpsons, the more the childishness reflects back on you.

K, don't fuel the fire, it's really not worth it. You and I (not to mention a hell of a lot of others here) know you're way above this level of tit for tat hair pulling.

Yes, plagiarism is a shitty thing, we all hate it. It's time to hold up our hands, apologise and move on.

The point, Ismail, is that you did plagiarise, even if you did so unknowingly. I find it interesting that even after admitting it and all of this unnecessary arguing (Which was brought down to your level, not K's, as you just said.) and what-not you still can't apologise.

I'm not starting a fresh argument, I'm not even going to reply in this thread again (unless the original topic resurfaces) regardless of any reply, explainations, dodging or questions you have.

I'm just giving you a gentle push towards introspection.

B

KoT, I'm British... ye bugger.

It depends what you mean by sound. I think there are many conclusions to this question.

Ok Sarah, what are your theories? I'd love to hear them.

"But alas, i see there is no spell check, thus i cannot correct my spelling..."

Possibly the single most useless excuse I have ever heard.

Just so you know, my British post was a joke.

Emails are private, no need to highlight them, especially when you're reading more into them than is there.

"You can pretend like this e-mail was never
sent/received, you can try to talk this out like a mature adult, or you can blow
it completely out of proportion and start yet another argument about
something that, in essence, is nothing."

This passage from Morgan's email demostrates this point perfectly.

I don't usually get involved in these squabbles unless they are funny and I can heighten the amusement factor, but in this case, Ismail, you're just digging a deeper hole, just like your argument with Kaitlin where you just made yourself look silly.

The proper way to have responded to Morgan's post would have been to fix the errors and say thanks for the heads up.

You say you're trying to learn semantics and so on... the first step is being able to take critisism.

B