Differences between Object and Phenomenon

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Asexperia, Nov 7, 2017.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,314
    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    So you admit vibrations but no sound ?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,314
    Where did you make such an assertion?
    All you said was that air is the medium, which I do not dispute.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    How could you dispute vibrations , physics , through air , medium .
     
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,314
    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.
     
  9. geordief Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    592
  10. geordief Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    592
    Does a drunk fighting the air actually have an enemy?
     
  11. Asexperia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    946
    There is sound or vibrations, but not tune, intensity and timbre.
     
  12. geordief Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    592
    What ,not even if tom tit squarks his finale as the tree falls?
     
  13. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,478
    "Fight Club"
     
  14. Asexperia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    946
    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.
     
  15. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,749
    Cesspool or lock please

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    exchemist likes this.
  16. Asexperia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    946
    Off-topic.
     
  17. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,637
    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.
     
    sideshowbob likes this.
  18. Asexperia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    946
    You mean there isn't any difference between objects and body?
     
  19. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,041
    There isn't any significant difference. In specific instances, one word my be better than the other.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  20. Asexperia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    946
    Very clear.
     
  21. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    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
     
  22. Equinox Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    106
    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?)
     
  23. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Bit of a stretch here , Equinox .

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

Share This Page