Originally posted by FabianFnasYour reasoning is flawed. If you don't believe me try one of those decompressed campanulas and try to ring a bell inside of it. You won't hear a thing.
And remember:
(1) Planets are in space.
(2) Earth is a planet.
...therefore...
(3) Earth is in space.
(4) You can hear sound on Earth.
Ergo - you can hear sounds in space.
Ps: This is somewhat of an ideal scenario since perfect vauum is impossible to get.
Originally posted by adam warlockYou say my reasoning is flawed but you don't say why and where.
Your reasoning is flawed. If you don't believe me try one of those decompressed campanulas and try to ring a bell inside of it. You won't hear a thing.
Ps: This is somewhat of an ideal scenario since perfect vauum is impossible to get.
Do you honestly say that there is no sound anywhere (anywhere at all?) in space even if you don't consider the Earth as a part of space?
Or do you say that space is vacuum and nothing but vaccum and empty space?
It is a widespread myth that no one can hear you scream in space.
In vacuum, yes, but inside a spacesuit a scream can be horrifyingly loud.
Originally posted by FabianFnasoh my. this is a semantics conflict, not a physics conflict.
You say my reasoning is flawed but you don't say why and where.
Do you honestly say that there is no sound anywhere (anywhere at all?) in space even if you don't consider the Earth as a part of space?
Or do you say that space is vacuum and nothing but vaccum and empty space?
It is a widespread myth that no one can hear you scream in space.
In vacuum, yes, but inside a spacesuit a scream can be horrifyingly loud.
"space" is being used as a general term, rather than more precise language.
"sound" needs molecules to happen. "sound" doesn't happen in a vacuum.
"space" isn't a perfect vacuum, but the number of molecules that would be needed to register a sound don't exist in a "near perfect vacuum" that is being called "space" in this discussion.
a place (or a compartment) that has enough molecular denisty sufficient to produce a "sound" that is audible (hearable) to a human ear is not "space," although it does exist in a place that takes up space.
so, if an RHP argument is stated in space so that no one can hear it, is it still inane?
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe thing is sound is created when supernovas explode but it will not be transmitted through vacuum but if the vast sonic boom waves touches the athmospehere it will can be heard but not without special devices, because it is a very low frequency.
You say my reasoning is flawed but you don't say why and where.
Do you honestly say that there is no sound anywhere (anywhere at all?) in space even if you don't consider the Earth as a part of space?
Or do you say that space is vacuum and nothing but vaccum and empty space?
It is a widespread myth that no one can hear you scream in space.
In vacuum, yes, but inside a spacesuit a scream can be horrifyingly loud.
BTW, in spaceshifts there is air where the sound can vibrate.
However, it is a good question whether in blackholes this can happen or not since it is condensed matter.
Originally posted by kenanyes and no would be fine , but if you are up to giving a short explaination I would be more than happy to listen. my question was are frequency and decipals directlt relateable to the speed of the sound, just trying to link it to the article posted
What's your question? Do you need just "yes or no" answer or an explanation?
Please be specific.
Originally posted by joe shmoThe artricle you posted in fact.
yes and no would be fine , but if you are up to giving a short explaination I would be more than happy to listen. my question was are frequency and decipals directlt relateable to the speed of the sound, just trying to link it to the article posted
Originally posted by joe shmoPardon me but my English is not very good. What are decipals?
yes and no would be fine , but if you are up to giving a short explaination I would be more than happy to listen. my question was are frequency and decipals directlt relateable to the speed of the sound, just trying to link it to the article posted
Originally posted by joe shmoOh, I am sorry I should have guessed you meant decibels.
sorry, decibels: a unit of relative loudness........your English is apparently better than my own😳
Decibels are used to determine the intensity of the sound.
To be more specific, decibel is logarithmic unit; "10 times the logarithm of the ratio of the sound intensity to some reference intensity."
So, it is not related to speed of light at all to answer your question, they are merely a unit, just like meters.
2 edits
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/dB.html explains everything if you are not familiar with decibels and logarithmic functions.
A Logarithmic function is the inverse of the exponential function. A logarithmic function rises up quickly and then the increase slows down and goes to infinity very very very slowly.
For example an exponential function rises slowly at first but as the x coordinate gets bigger y rises dramatically. For example the world's population growth is exponential because the population compounds.
A good example for a logarithmic function is the Richter magnitude scale. It measures the amount of seismic energy released by an earthquake.
"It is a base-10 logarithmic scale obtained by calculating the logarithm of the combined horizontal amplitude of the largest displacement from zero on a seismometer output (Wikipedia).
The reason why it is logartihmic is that the first shock of an earthquake is so big and the seismic energy slows down. You must have noticed that the rear shocks after a big first shock are less dangerous and damaging.
Hope this helps.