Non Math

An energy crisis in North Dakota? yOU ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE LEFT ON THIS PLANET with some semblance of practicality Dont lose this gift from God

We love this supposed energy crisis!

We absolutely laugh our collective selves sick going to the bank! And whats funnier is the majority of the country just keeps dumping more money on us to keep making more power production systems!

And now just recently we may have confirmed we may have the largest oil reserve in the world under us!

Our 630,000 state residents may have to pass forced in state retirement at age 35 just to burn up all the money if it keeps up!

I wouldn't laugh too loud if I were you...

Even as we speak US forces are amassing at your borders, U2s and Predators circle overhead scanning for WMDs, and the US government's unofficial media ministry, Faux News, is demonizing your governor, John Hoeven-bin-Lyin', as a closet Islamic terrorist who "we're pretty darn sure is," says CIA director Leon E. Panetta, "hiding out in the Badlands."

The Badlands. How apropos is that? Even Iraq doesn't have one of those.

Canada's next.

Hmm. That could pose a problem being we have enough nuclear missiles buried in our fields to destroy the world a few times over and we do have a fleet of B-52 bombers and other nuclear capable aircraft here as well.

But fortunately for us our own American government placed them here, maintains them, and has the maps to where everything is located. They also hired us to patrol our own borders too being we would know them better than anyone else.

So there is still a very good chance if they looked they still wouldn't find anything!

And as far as Canada. Well most of the united states population thinks we are a part of Canada anyways. Hence the reason we feel pretty confident they wont find what they put here using their own maps.

Imagine a spreadsheet with the first column containing all the possible numbers.

The second column contains the numbers in the first column x 2.

Both have an infinite number of rows, and every number in the second column must be in the first, so they have the same number of rows.

This is called aleph null infinity; the infinity of integers.

There are also larger infinities; of rational numbers, real numbers, etc.

The number of galaxies and stars in it are not infinite. Only problem is we are just incapable of counting all!

My position is not and never has been that the number of stars in a galaxy are infinite Please take a moment to revisit my statement

Infinity X Infinity = Infinity.

Are you certain? infinity/infinity =1? Can infinity be multiplied by infinity since infinity is all encompassing, how if you establish infinity, can infinity remain to be multiplied by it?

infinity is all encompassing

Thats why I say there nothing like infinity. It is our inability to count!

Re Infinity

From a mathematical perspective it can be considered that there are a number of classes of infinities, each larger than its predecessor.

Examples include

1 All integers from 1 to infinity.--Obviously infinite

2 All numbers from minus infinity to plus infinity with infinite decimal places available to each! An obviously bigger infinity!!

And this is just a start, interesting reading about this subject can be found in many libraries, bookshops, internet browsers an so on. generally iof you imagine 1 as a single dimensioned infinity then consider 2 as a 2 dimensioned infinity then it is not difficult to imagine other higher dimensioned infinities.

Have fun

Sleepy
NB

One such rteference is a brief history of INFINITY by Brian Clegg

ISBN 1-84119-650-9

Wait a minute here... first, "Infinity" is not an absolute number, nor is it something that indicates a state of limitlessness! It infact is a LIMIT by itself - let me explain - Say a simple equation explains a relationship between two quantities, "x" & "y" as in f(x)=y where a change in x would reflect a change in y. Now as x changes beyond (or below) a certain point, changes in y would be miniscule or too tiny to inconsequential....these "boundaries" (for lack of a better word) is something referred to a LIMITS... In some relationships, these LIMITS are termed INFINITY although out here, it represents a relative infinity - but that is the point - by itself, absolute infinity is no-existant as Infinity is only relevant in a relation.

So absolute everything and absolute nothing are the same.

No math there.

Jon

Are you certain? if so convince me!

Hi Kay,

it is my understanding that:

Absolute everything and absolute nothing are the same. Kind of a wild assertion eh?

Something about impossible conditions comes to mind.

Absolute nothingness can not exist and is only an imaginary state.

Absolute everything does not exist because it too is an imaginary state. Otherwise I guess my house, yard and sky would be filled with galactic material and I would no longer be able to poke the keys on here.

Jon

We had a discussion which led me to the conclusion that infinity did not exist in the universe, only in mathematics

But God, the creator of all things, can!!! In this is the feebleness of man seen compared to the greatness of God.

It is apparently so, the concept of infinity doesnt seem to manifest itself in the universe (aka Creation) so to survive as a concept it must manifest itself in the Creator

Man believes many different and divers things. In the end it really dosn't matter what we believe. What trully does matter is what God had to say about it in his inspired word. In the beginning God created...

I disagree, In the end the ONLY thing that matters is what we believe

My layman's opinion (not supported by any facts) is: the term infinite is applied to anything that is beyond the ability of anyone to count or comprehend. Based on this statement, the number of grains of sand on our planet cannot be counted, therefore we must assume the quantity of sand grains is infinite or limitless for all intensive purposes. We might be able to "approximate", but unless it's exact, it's infinite.

well not exactly, if i have a bag of beans and you cant count them that doesnt make them infinite. You are on the right track as no one has given me an instance of Infinity in nature only in mathematical terms Like Pi and things like that Thanks for your input

Infinity is a theoretical limit. It is the constraints of our mind and its capacity to reflect onto this universe. There are many example of x approaching infinity, whether bean counting, time or space. My favorite example is this: take a rigid yard (meter) stick and measure across a given distance on the surface of Earth. Now split that stick in two and measure again. The distance will be a little longer. Split the stick again and measure again... a little longer. Continue this until your measuring stick is the length of an atom and the distance will approach infinity. As the stick gets smaller it measures into deeper (relatively) and deeper folds in space. I'll elaborate if this does not make sense.

Zero is the reciprocal of infinity. It is also a theoretical limit. Show me nothing. You can't. Nothing only exists in relationship to something else, eg no money, zero jelly beans, etc. Paradoxically, there is nowhere in this universe where there is nothing, for, at that point, it does not exist.

So, there are less than an infinite number of stars and galaxies, but that is not to say our universe is not infinite. As far as our little minds are concerned anyway.

Hindu seers of ten thousand years ago described one of the features God as Anant, which means endless or infinite. That is the cosmos created by Him.

We do not know how our own solar system with heavy bodies and our milky way galaxy with suns 1000 times greater than our sun are all floating in the air. Without solving this problem near home, why should we bother about the infinity?

Another mystery nearer is the software and hardware of billions of living bodies.

"Floating in the air???"

It's because of all the hydrogen and helium.

On the other hand Hindu seers say that every thing we see is MAAYAA.(माया). the illusion. So why to bother about this illusion of Anant... infinity.

Numbers Are Infinite. Count as high as you can, and then add 1... then 1 more, and 1 more, and 1 more, etc., etc., ad nauseum infinitum. To negate an "it will end when I die" argument, have someone else there to take the reins when you're about to kick it (and so on...). :)

According to the Hitch Hikers Guide to the galaxy, the answer lies in the question of which the answer is 42.

The question is, what is 6 times 9?

Once you grasp this concept everything else makes sense, even feminine logic.

^{Universe is finite and so it cannot have infinite number of elements in it. Big bang started from a singularity as Stephen W.Hwaking put it. A system with a definite starting point cannot be infinite as it starts from a finite stage. Finite cannot become infinite as it is against all known laws of physics. However finite can expand and increase - seemingly towards infinity, but not in reality}

The Universe can't be finite as it can be observed from the Second Law Of Thermodynamics.That is, available energy in the universe is decreasing and finally it ill reach a point (in the very distant future) where no 'avialable energy' is available.This is a well established and observable scientific fact. If there is a gradual running down process -due to SLT- which leads to total chaotic end, the process should have started at a definite point in time past. That is, the universe cannot be infinite-in terms of space and time measurements. Moreover, infinite cannot enter or become finite under a process governed by the laws applied to finites. Such a process even defies well known mathematical principles.

If at all possible only God ,a super natural (or super physical) - being with a mind-who is not governed by physical law - can enter from infinite (eternity) to finite.

The universe is finite. The best way to understand it is to imagine you are a 2 dimensional being on the surface of a huge three dimensional sphere: as you look in any direction you cannot see how "your" space can be finite because you do not perceive the curvature in three dimensions.

Now you just have to extrapolate that model to the three dimensional surface of a four dimensional sphere in four dimensional space.

Of course there could be an infinite number of universes in the four dimensional space. Each universe could contain a finite number of galaxies and each galaxy a finite number of stars, but, a finite number (however big) times infinity is just infinity.

In fact you don't see absolutely nothing because your 2 dimensional sight is tangential to the sphere.

Imagine that in the 2/3 dimensional case that light is constrained to travel in/on the surface of the sphere. Of course in the 3/4 dimensional case this is the reality.

G.K.,

Don't forget that here is plenty of space to allow for any number of objects to occupy it without crowding. So the sky would not be filled with so many stars as to brighten the sky more than it is.

The universe is not a marble sack that can only hold a certian number of marbles.

Jon

Kudukweller, you didn't understand the specific point (and that's why I suppose you took off a credit from me). I didn't say that all stars should be stacked together. NO... they can be far away to each other... They can be as sparse as you want...

What I said is that wherever you look at the sky your sight (i.e. every line-sight) will eventually end up to the surface of a star (and that happens because of the infinite number of stars) as I show in the next figure.

I couldn't draw more stars but I think that you got my point.

Nooo, that's only 7... How do you make those little balls come out of your eye???

G.K,

The light of distant stars is so dissipated that they would only block the light coming from behind them.

However light from distant galaxies has been magnified by the combined effects of the arrangement of other galaxies between them and us. That some lense effect!

What's a credit?

Jon

Actually gravitational lensing is fairly rare. We see all the galaxies THAT WE SEE because they're there, and we have scopes with enough power and quality to resolve their images.

(WOW! That was three "theres" in the same sentence!)

THAT WE SEE because they're there,

That we see because they WERE there. We are not sure if still they are there, as what we see is light of the past... many years past depending upon the distance of the galaxy from us.

In an infinite, eternal, homogeneous and static universe your eyes should receive photons from any direction -as in every direction (line-sight) there is a star which sends photons to your eye-. It doesn't matter how far this star is. If nothing exist between this star and your eye, then your eye will receive photons from this star. The light is not dimmed because its source (the star) is very far. It's dimmed because usually there are dust and gases in the empty space between the distant stars.

Now let's consider again the above drawing. If the space is clean the photons of any star (no matter how far it is) will eventually come to your eye. And an infinite number of homogeneously sparsed stars will send you photons from any direction (as the drawing depicts). Even if there are clouds of dust and gases in some places "shading" some of the stars, these clouds will get hotter (by absorbing photons) and they will, eventually, glow (hence transmitting photons themselves). (And there were plenty of time to do so in an eternal universe). The final result is that we get photons from any point of the sky. And that was my initial statement.

(Btw, by saying "credit" I meant "vote".)

G.K.,

Black holes ate the light and my homework before it got here?

You running for president?

Jon

It's not.

But then again, perhaps it is.

Think about what you are saying. If the Universe contained an infinite number of galaxies, galaxies would be stacked together like a huge bag of marbles. There would be no space between galaxies. In this case, I suspect "an infinite number" just means we can't count them all. You tell me the largest number you know, and I'll tell you a larger one. Are there an infinte number of infinities?

There would be no space between galaxies

This is wrong! The universe can be infinite (in fact it's not; see G.K.'s post) and still the galaxies can have a spacing among each other.

Imagine for instance the axis of real numbers and some dots on the place of integers. The dots have a spacing between them, still they are infinite! There can be various orders of infinity and one can be "contained" in another. The term "infinity" doesn't necessarily mean "everything"! Otherwise, we should take Douglas Adams seriously, when he claimed that in an infinite universe, there is a non-zero probability that somewhere you will find screwdrivers growing from the trees!

Cardio07,

A universe with no center and no edge could handle any amount of stuff and any increase with plenty of room to spare.

The universe doesn't grow or shrink. Space is illimitable. That's why it is called Universe.

The Universe comprises everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them.

People tend to use the word incorrectly to talk about the limited part that we know about as though it were all that is.

Jon

If an infinite number of spacemen in an infinite number of spaceships were to look for the boundary in finite space for an infinite amount of time then one of them should find it. When he steps out of his spaceship and approaches the boundary can he stick his hand through it?

If there were such a boundary that you could push your hand through, then the distinction between the structure of spacetime on this side of the boundary and the structure of what is on the other side must surely be an artificial one, shouldn't it? It, too, is space, is it not? You could push your hand into it, after all! Evidently, then, it supports the concept of "into" - a spacial concept - doesn't it? And as the act of pushing has a temporal component to it, we might as well consider that what is on the "other side" certainly supports the concept of space + time = spacetime in order for your hand to do anything at all on that side, yes? So, right off the bat we can see that whatever is on the other side sure looks a lot like Home in this very important respect. Why then a "boundary?" Sounds more to me like merely an extension of This Universe.

See my post #87

The surface of a sphere has no edge (boundary) but it is finite.

Kay

You have aroused much thought and discussion, but have you received an acceptable answer to your question?

If you accept the concept of infinity and that the stars in the universe are infinite, both of which are not absolutely comprehensible, the number of galaxies (each being a finite sub set within the infinite star universe) must also be infinite.

This Question was atypical for an engineering forum. I posited it as an exercise in "CRANIAL Gymnastics" I believe the participants had some fun with it. Thank You All For Your Thoughtful Input

Infinity is the limit beyond which man cannot think or imagine!

Who ever it was that told you that there are an infinite number of stars, and an infinite number of galaxies in the universe was either uninformed or resorting to hyperbole. There are a VERY, VERY LARGE number of stars in the universe, and a VERY LARGE number of galaxies. To the best of our knowledge the size of the universe is FINITE. If there were an INFINITE number of stars, the universe would HAVE to be packed SOLID with stars. There would be no room left for you and your computer, or for me and mine. Since this conversation is taking place, this is clearly not the case. Further, you cannot fit an INFINITE number of anything into a FINITE volume. If you want to argue that the universe itself is INFINITE, then you need to make that case first. At the current time there is no real observational evidence for this.

If I had to guess, I would bet that you heard this statement in a math class, not in astronomy. Mathematically speaking you could say that on a line with a length of 1 cm there are an INFINITE number of points. You could also say that in a line with a length of one light-year there are also an INFINITE number of points. Simple arithmetic will show that these two INFINITIES cannot be the same, so in the universe of pure mathematics this would appear to be a paradox.

But in the physical universe this is probably not true.To the best of our knowledge, the smallest unit of length is the Plank unit, and the smallest unit of time is the Plank time. This means that the spacetime occupied by the real universe is not endlessly divisible into smaller and smaller units. Time and space are apparently granular. There are a FINITE number of actual possible positions along the line with a length of 1 cm, and there are a FINITE number of points in time in an interval of 1 second. This is where pure mathematics collides with physical reality.

If there were an INFINITE number of stars, the universe would HAVE to be packed SOLID with stars.

It seems that there is a lack of understanding about infinity. Well, first of all, the assumption that the starts are infinite, doesn't necessarily mean that they have to be packed. I have already given an analogy with the integer numbers on the axis of the real numbers in a previous post. But let's approach it in a different way: The stars are not points. They have sizes. Therefore, they may be packed, if you like, but still they have a non-zero distance between each other's center. There will always be a finite number of them in a given volume. Now think this: If for a magical reason the stars will only fit the universe if they touch each other (as you claim), then if I take them a millimeter apart, then they will not fit any more? What if I take them one meter or one light-year apart? At which distance they will stop fitting in the universe and why?

You have to understand that infinite stars can fit in an infinite universe and still be away from each other. And of course we must not forget that the universe is not infinite in reality. The paradox posed by G.K. in his original post is one of the arguments used to prove the finiteness of the universe. And of course all those theories about the big-bang, etc.

Further, you cannot fit an INFINITE number of anything into a FINITE volume.

What about the number of (sizeless) points in a finite closed shape? Mathematically it is possible indeed to fit infinity in a finite space. (In a fractal, you can also have a boundary of infinite length surrounding a finite area.) After all, it's you who said that there are infinite number of points in 1cm of line. Unfortunately you lose it again later by saying that there are more points in a one-light-year-long line. Well, mathematics say that there the same "number" of points in both lines! (You can match the points in the one segment one-by-one to points to the other longer segment e.g. by multiplying the position of the first point along the first line by a factor of one-light-year/cm and get the position of it's match in the second line.)

Be careful when you deal with the infinity! There are many (infinite!) orders of infinity (e.g. the number of the reals is "more infinite" than the number of integers.) Ohterwise, infinities of the same order have the same "size", i.e. number of included members.

Time and space are apparently granular. There are a FINITE number of actual possible positions along the line with a length of 1 cm, and there are a FINITE number of points in time in an interval of 1 second.

Again, there may be finite points in 1cm of a "granular" line, but then, what's the total number of the points if the line has infinite length?

As far as the original question is concerned, if galaxys contain stars and the universe contains an infinite number of galaxies then, the number of stars would also be an infinite number because it depends on the number of galaxys.

To sum things up in a simple example, i'll ask a question.

When a tree falls to the ground deep in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound when it smacks the ground?

If you answered yes, how do you know for sure?

If you answered no, how do you know for sure?

Point being, we only can assume some of the answers to the great questions unless a satisfactory amount of clear evidence is available. I would lean on assumption in many situations based on certain factors but that is called taking a chance based on probable cause and effect from experiences of my life.

I would make the guess that all things are constantly growing and changing and some processes repeat the cycle but the energy from that process is always moving forward. The designer of things is was and has always been and always will be. If i had been around for that long, i would not have sat around and twiddled my thumbs. I would have been working on many projects with an ever changing set of ideas with as much diverse thinking as you can imagine. There wouldn't be a wasted space in any direction or in any dimension. If you can imagine the Universe being the equivalent of the protons and electrons around an Atom and actually size of creation is neither large or small. All things are just realative to their enviroment. Things could be different because of size or dimension and allow a place to have just as much more stuff as the imagination allows. You have to think what would you try if you had gods time limit and knowledge and felt creative. Things are what they seem in many cases and what you can't see will just have to wait until someone turns on a light.

If a tree falls in the woods and hits the ground and no one is there to hear it must not make a sound!! by definition there is no "ear" available to convert the sound waves to sound whether the sound waves were emitted or not

Ears do not convert sound waves to sound. Sound waves already qualify as "sound." Ears register variations in air (and bone) pressure and produce nerve impulses that correspond to those variations.

What is not sound here is your line of "reasoning."

Its a case of definition, not "unsound" reasoning I was merely attempting to throw a wrench in that "old chestnut" tree in the forest illustration! Leave it to the Anti-Saganite Europium to catch it. Good Form!

Europium,

Vibrations are converted to sound. Without a "converter" there is no sound according to the definition of "sound".

Jon

It seems that you take physically reality as something subjective: One has to "convert" the various phenomena into something meaningful in order to qualify it as real phenomena and also give them an appropriate name. Otherwise these phenomena lie in an abstract sphere of ideas. But you have to understand that perception is a very subjective and slippery issue and creates difficulties to understand the world, let alone communicate with another intelligent creature that might have a different perception of the reality.

The questions that one may rise, are such: What about those mysterious and anonymous air-pressure waves when they reach your ear drum while you are sleeping? Can we talk about sound now? What if those waves are not strong enough for you to sense them? What if the waves reach the ear of a 1 month fetus in his mother's womb? Is this creature sentient and intelligent enough to "convert" those waves into proper sound, according to you? What amount of conscience is required to make this "conversion" successful? In the same sense, can ultraviolet light be called real light, as long as we cannot see it? Are bees - who see it - enough intelligent to convert those waves into proper light?

Fortunately, even in the usage of everyday language we don't make a mistake in such issues: we say for instance "I didn't hear that sound of the tree falling". This means that "sound" is considered as something that exists independently of whether we (or anybody else for that matter) hear it or not. We won't ever say something like: "A tree fell in the forest and made no sound at all". When the thunder strikes we know that there is a sound. We will hear it soon. Reality is out there whether we keep our ears or eyes closed, or if we dig our heads in the ground. We will know as soon as we put our sensory organs back to use. World has moved in its course whether we have been watching it or not. Similar causes resulted in similar effects. The human race (along most of the species) evolved and survived in a difficult and changing world, exactly because they could - on the one hand - analyze reality as it is, e.g. a sound is a sound, and - on the other hand - handle the information about whether reality was perceived (if at all) as a totally different issue.

Hi Tkot,

So the stuff of the universe is governed by a standard. So is our language.

One has to "convert" the various phenomena into something meaningful in order to qualify it as real phenomena and also give them an appropriate name.

I don't try to set the standard. The standard is already there. That is what was on the plate when got there. What was I to do, falsify a word meaning and get ripped by someone else who actually read a real dictionary?

I could have thrown some Cockney slang into the picture it would not have made a difference to some people.

Reminds me of 5S training that gets everyone on the same page so they can understand and successfully build the Tower of Babel.

Based on five Japanese words that begin with 'S', the 5S Philosophy focuses on effective work place organization and standardized work procedures. 5S simplifies your work environment, reduces waste and non-value activity while improving quality efficiency and safety.

Sort (Seiri), Set In Order (Seiton), Shine (Seiso), Standardize (Seiketsu) & Sustain (Shitsuke). (I understand that some of the translations are very loose but that standard was set for the english speaker.)

Did you read the post that contained the meaning from the Compact Oxford English Dictionary?

sound¹

• noun 1 vibrations which travel through the air or another medium and are sensed by the ear. 2 a thing that can be heard. 3 music, speech, and sound effects accompanying a film or broadcast. 4 an idea or impression conveyed by words.

• verb 1 emit or cause to emit sound. 2 utter. 3 convey a specified impression: the job sounds great. 4 (sound off) express one's opinions loudly or forcefully.

I didn't write that book. It is the standard used for English. Etymology points to the noun 1 meaning from Latin, Old Irish and Old English.

Is the sound of the tree a Noun or a verb? Noun meaning 1, No sound. Verb meaning 1, a sound.

The correct answer relates to the action of the tree falling and emitting vibrations - verb 1 - so it emits a sound. The correct answer would be yes for a Brit.

The answer is only as good as the question. The question was flawed or the students were not able to differentiate between a noun and a verb with regard to the action of the tree.

We see questions in here all the time that contain so little detail that no reasonable answer could be derived.

Reality can not be perceived if the data is flawed or falsified.

There is a story about medical students in an anatomy class who could not correctly count the number of ribs on skeletons after identifying the gender.

The students who made this error were literalist fundamentalist Christians and it was because of the story of Eve being made from Adam's rib.

The students all agreed in the end that all humans, male and female, had 12. (The professor's mother has 13.)

I see a similar situation here with people who don't seem to escape the box made long ago by errant philosophers who didn't believe the true teachings and repeat the processes through math, logic and experimentation. Now in our age we have a crop of scientists who operate at a much higher level and must work at proving and then disproving theories to see if they float.

We can't use data from works in progress to make a final answer for the questions of the nature of the universe.

Jon

No.

Sound requires a hearer who can process it and define it. Otherwise it is just vibrations.

Sound is the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations.

Jon

"Sound" is vibrations. "Hearing" is decoding vibrations into a format the receiver can understand. The "Sound" is there none the less.

We need to agree on a definition of "sound" Europium's argument with me is one of definition of terms. UK guys like Oxford while we yanks use Webster

How about; vibrations resulting from resistance to motion?

technically isn't it rapid variations in pressure not vibrations.

Kay,

Funny you should mention that. The first entry agrees with my understanding and the etymology of the word.

sound1 • noun 1 vibrations which travel through the air or another medium and are sensed by the ear. 2 a thing that can be heard. 3 music, speech, and sound effects accompanying a film or broadcast. 4 an idea or impression conveyed by words. • verb 1 emit or cause to emit sound. 2 utter. 3 convey a specified impression: the job sounds great. 4 (sound off) express one's opinions loudly or forcefully. vibrations which travel through the air or another medium and are sensed by the ear.

The other 3 meanings have nothing to do with vibrations.

Jon

hello kudukdweller9

I must protest regarding the definition of 'sound'. Sound is a mechanical wave created by anything capable of creating sonic waves that can travel through the air or any other medium, regardless of whether or not anyone intercepts the sound and 'hears' it. It is still sound. Otherwise there would be no need for the terms Infrasound or Ultrasound both of which are beyond a human's ability to 'hear', but are still considered sound.

As to the rest of this thread, it is incomprehensible how such a goofy question, started and spurred on by an obvious child bent on the use of philosophical BS could grow to such proportions. It is just a childish means of entrapment. It's like trying to answer the questions of an 8-year-old when each successive question is "why". The question IS philosophical and any answer can only be based on whatever theory you accept as truth. Until we know for sure, any thoughts are pure speculation.

I appologize if this offends anyone, but this thread is just as stupid as the next thread started by this child about whether or not you can find the absolute area of a circle. HS!!! Like talking to a wall and expecting rational responses. It's just more crap and I have better things to do like contemplating my navel, breaking the thumb twiddling record or picking at scabs.

Beat me up if you will. I accept any and all abuse as my anger therapist says it's good for me.

Hi snygolfgs,

I must protest regarding the definition of 'sound'.

Me too!

Noun or verb. that is the question.

Noun is when the sound is heard or made to be heard.

Verb is when something emits vibrations like the action of a falling tree or lightning.

The question about the tree falling tells us it is a verb and emits without the noun definition.

The students don't usually understand that and run amuck like the builders of the Tower of Babel.

there would be no need for the terms Infrasound or Ultrasound both of which are beyond a human's ability to 'hear', but are still considered sound.

There are devices for heterodyning the extended audio spectrum so you can hear it.

And I use my digital camera to see if my LED on my TV "clicker" is working.

"as to the rest of this thread, it is incomprehensible how such a goofy question, started and spurred on by an obvious child bent on the use of philosophical BS could grow to such proportions. It is just a childish means of entrapment. It's like trying to answer the questions of an 8-year-old when each successive question is "why". The question IS philosophical and any answer can only be based on whatever theory you accept as truth. Until we know for sure, any thoughts are pure speculation."

It IS entertainment and it does exercise the feeble minds.

I apologize if this offends anyone, but this thread is just as stupid as the next thread started by this child about whether or not you can find the absolute area of a circle. HS!!! Like talking to a wall and expecting rational responses. It's just more crap and I have better things to do like contemplating my navel, breaking the thumb twiddling record or picking at scabs.

Beat me up if you will. I accept any and all abuse as my anger therapist says it's good for me.

Good post sny.

Jon