Can anyone answer this question.

  • 908 Replies
  • 294580 Views
?

11cookeaw1

Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #210 on: October 16, 2013, 11:39:33 AM »
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?

Remember, light travels faster than sound so you see the light before you hear it.  The light didn't create the sound.  The SOUND created the light.

No. These are just two different phenomena cause by something else. A fire creates light and sound for instance. Neither creates each other.
To create a fire you have to create a friction and to create a friction you have to create a vibration and creating this has to start with sound which creates the energy that you see and hear and what not.
You can create a fire with a magnifying glass or by say putting potassium in water.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #211 on: October 16, 2013, 11:39:34 AM »
Scepti incorrectly uses the word vacuum when he means absolutely nothing. These aren't the same and nothing does not exist.
I use the word correctly. Science uses it incorrectly because they call it a VACUUM and it is not a vacuum at all, it cannot be created in earth's dome. The true vacuum is simply a word to describe none existence.
You cannot survive without matter, you cannot have scattered matter with a vacuum in between, unless you are a cell in suspended animation, as the earth is.
If someone makes up a new word with its own definition and you starting using that wod but with a different definition then it's using it wrong.
If they change the word vacuum to mean partially evacuated matter, then that would be fair enough.
The problem is, they use vacuum to mean DEVOID of ALL matter, which would mean a none existence, which means they are using the word wrong.
Even a partial vacuum is wrong as it contains matter which means vacuum should not be used.

Irrelevant though and not worth arguing over.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #212 on: October 16, 2013, 11:42:52 AM »
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?

Remember, light travels faster than sound so you see the light before you hear it.  The light didn't create the sound.  The SOUND created the light.

My LED torch produces light without sound. How can that be possible?
Your ears are not conditioned to hear the sound, that's all.

Forget our ears, Microphones should be able to pick up the wave form of light if it is indeed a form of sound.

Light and Sound are not inherently causally linked. Light can be produced without sound, and sound can be produced without light. Light propagates where Sound cannot, and Sound propagates through materials that block or reflect light.
Stand your microphone out when it's thundering and lightning, it will pick up the sound.

My microphone will not pick up lightning. It will not pick up my desk lamp, a flash light, a laser pointer, an LED monitor, Bioluminescent fungi or animal cells, or any other form of light.

That's because these are not sounds, and my Microphone was designed to pick up sounds.

Thunder is a sound. My microphone will pick up thunder. But it will not pick up the flash of lightning. Lightning is not a sound. It's also technically not a light. It produces both light and sound independently of each other.

This is a simple, common sense explanation. Light being a sound is neither simple, nor is is common sense.
Your microphone is not sensitive enough to pick up the vibration of those items but it is good enough to pick up the sound from that lightning strike.

*

Cartesian

  • 1965
  • +0/-0
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #213 on: October 16, 2013, 11:43:46 AM »
How closely have you scrutinized light?  Here is something that should blow your mind:
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Double Slit Experiment (Through The Wormhole)
This is a classical intro into QM. QM is definitely full of weird stuffs. Even Einstein designed a thought experiment to try to disprove the idea of entanglement.
I think, therefore I am

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #214 on: October 16, 2013, 11:44:33 AM »
Light first or sound?

Crude, yes, the principle is the same. FRICTION.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Power of Friction

What is the relation between this and the OP?!
A slightly different path. It often happens.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #215 on: October 16, 2013, 11:46:10 AM »
Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?

Remember, light travels faster than sound so you see the light before you hear it.  The light didn't create the sound.  The SOUND created the light.

No. These are just two different phenomena cause by something else. A fire creates light and sound for instance. Neither creates each other.
To create a fire you have to create a friction and to create a friction you have to create a vibration and creating this has to start with sound which creates the energy that you see and hear and what not.
You can create a fire with a magnifying glass or by say putting potassium in water.
And what do you think it creating the light that shines through the magnifying glass and what do you think the reaction is with potassium in water?

?

Happy Forever

  • 168
  • +0/-0
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #216 on: October 16, 2013, 11:46:18 AM »
Light first or sound?

Crude, yes, the principle is the same. FRICTION.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Power of Friction

What is the relation between this and the OP?!
A slightly different path. It often happens.

Ok but not slightly, it's completely different.
Life is a big trick.

*

Cartesian

  • 1965
  • +0/-0
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #217 on: October 16, 2013, 11:46:26 AM »
Light first or sound?

Crude, yes, the principle is the same. FRICTION.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Power of Friction
What is the relation between this and the OP?!
The only relation is that both are from the same poster.
I think, therefore I am

?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • +0/-0
  • The Militant Skeptic
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #218 on: October 16, 2013, 11:50:38 AM »
Scepti incorrectly uses the word vacuum when he means absolutely nothing. These aren't the same and nothing does not exist.
I use the word correctly. Science uses it incorrectly because they call it a VACUUM and it is not a vacuum at all, it cannot be created in earth's dome. The true vacuum is simply a word to describe none existence.
You cannot survive without matter, you cannot have scattered matter with a vacuum in between, unless you are a cell in suspended animation, as the earth is.
If someone makes up a new word with its own definition and you starting using that wod but with a different definition then it's using it wrong.
If they change the word vacuum to mean partially evacuated matter, then that would be fair enough.
They did.  Check the Oxford English.  In fact, I'll do it for you.
Quote from: Oxford English Dictionary
noun (plural vacuums or vacua /-jʊə/)
1.  a space entirely devoid of matter.
         a space or container from which the air has been completely or partly removed.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/vacuum?q=vacuum

Notice the elaboration under the definition.  The word itself means both true vacuum, a space devoid of matter, and near vacuum, a space mostly devoid of matter.  In the context of space and experiments, it is almost always used to mean near vacuum, as there has been no observed instance of a true vacuum in reality.

The problem is, they use vacuum to mean DEVOID of ALL matter,
Only sometimes.
which would mean a none existence,
It means no such thing, space devoid of matter is just empty space.  There is no reason to believe that space ceases to exist.
which means they are using the word wrong.
Or they use a different definition.  Which, they do.
Even a partial vacuum is wrong as it contains matter which means vacuum should not be used.
So by your standard, the use of the phrase "A bit cold" shouldn't be allowed, because cold means lack of heat, and no matter how low something's temperature is, it still has heat meaning cold shouldn't be used.
Irrelevant though and not worth arguing over.
You're the one that started it by insisting vacuum means a lack of anything, rather than a space totally or near totally evacuated of matter.
Quote from: Shmeggley
Wherever someone is wrong on the internet, Pyrolizard will be there!

Quote from: Excelsior John
I dont care about the majority I care about Obama.
Let it always be known that Excelsior John is against democracy.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #219 on: October 16, 2013, 11:51:36 AM »
Light first or sound?

Crude, yes, the principle is the same. FRICTION.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Power of Friction

What is the relation between this and the OP?!
A slightly different path. It often happens.

Ok but not slightly, it's completely different.
Yes it is, you are correct.

?

11cookeaw1

Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #220 on: October 16, 2013, 11:53:30 AM »
Scepti incorrectly uses the word vacuum when he means absolutely nothing. These aren't the same and nothing does not exist.
I use the word correctly. Science uses it incorrectly because they call it a VACUUM and it is not a vacuum at all, it cannot be created in earth's dome. The true vacuum is simply a word to describe none existence.
You cannot survive without matter, you cannot have scattered matter with a vacuum in between, unless you are a cell in suspended animation, as the earth is.
If someone makes up a new word with its own definition and you starting using that wod but with a different definition then it's using it wrong.
If they change the word vacuum to mean partially evacuated matter, then that would be fair enough.
The problem is, they use vacuum to mean DEVOID of ALL matter, which would mean a none existence, which means they are using the word wrong.
Even a partial vacuum is wrong as it contains matter which means vacuum should not be used.

Irrelevant though and not worth arguing over.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #221 on: October 16, 2013, 11:54:37 AM »
Scepti incorrectly uses the word vacuum when he means absolutely nothing. These aren't the same and nothing does not exist.
I use the word correctly. Science uses it incorrectly because they call it a VACUUM and it is not a vacuum at all, it cannot be created in earth's dome. The true vacuum is simply a word to describe none existence.
You cannot survive without matter, you cannot have scattered matter with a vacuum in between, unless you are a cell in suspended animation, as the earth is.
If someone makes up a new word with its own definition and you starting using that wod but with a different definition then it's using it wrong.
If they change the word vacuum to mean partially evacuated matter, then that would be fair enough.
They did.  Check the Oxford English.  In fact, I'll do it for you.
Quote from: Oxford English Dictionary
noun (plural vacuums or vacua /-jʊə/)
1.  a space entirely devoid of matter.
         a space or container from which the air has been completely or partly removed.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/vacuum?q=vacuum

Notice the elaboration under the definition.  The word itself means both true vacuum, a space devoid of matter, and near vacuum, a space mostly devoid of matter.  In the context of space and experiments, it is almost always used to mean near vacuum, as there has been no observed instance of a true vacuum in reality.

The problem is, they use vacuum to mean DEVOID of ALL matter,
Only sometimes.
which would mean a none existence,
It means no such thing, space devoid of matter is just empty space.  There is no reason to believe that space ceases to exist.
which means they are using the word wrong.
Or they use a different definition.  Which, they do.
Even a partial vacuum is wrong as it contains matter which means vacuum should not be used.
So by your standard, the use of the phrase "A bit cold" shouldn't be allowed, because cold means lack of heat, and no matter how low something's temperature is, it still has heat meaning cold shouldn't be used.
Irrelevant though and not worth arguing over.
You're the one that started it by insisting vacuum means a lack of anything, rather than a space totally or near totally evacuated of matter.
As I said, it's not worth arguing over. You've had your say and fair enough. We will leave it at that, because no head way will be gained from it.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45152
  • +95/-136
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #222 on: October 16, 2013, 12:01:21 PM »
Think carefully about anything on earth that produces light and you will see that it's all created by sound.
Correlation does not imply causation.  Just because things that make light also make sound, that does not necessarily mean that sound causes light.
Yes it does.
You're a sensible person, have a really good ponder over it. You don't have to agree with me in the forum, just really scrutinise everything about sound/ (vibration/friction), and frequency and you will know what creates ALL light no matter which way you look at it.
How closely have you scrutinized light?  Here is something that should blow your mind:
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Double Slit Experiment (Through The Wormhole)
It's certainly not blowing my mind. I don't know what point you are trying to make here.
Do you agree with the results of the double slit experiment or do you believe that it's being misinterpreted by scientists?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #223 on: October 16, 2013, 12:04:02 PM »
Think carefully about anything on earth that produces light and you will see that it's all created by sound.
Correlation does not imply causation.  Just because things that make light also make sound, that does not necessarily mean that sound causes light.
Yes it does.
You're a sensible person, have a really good ponder over it. You don't have to agree with me in the forum, just really scrutinise everything about sound/ (vibration/friction), and frequency and you will know what creates ALL light no matter which way you look at it.
How closely have you scrutinized light?  Here is something that should blow your mind:
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Double Slit Experiment (Through The Wormhole)
It's certainly not blowing my mind. I don't know what point you are trying to make here.
Do you agree with the results of the double slit experiment or do you believe that it's being misinterpreted by scientists?
I don't see the relevance of it .

*

29silhouette

  • 3374
  • +0/-0
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #224 on: October 16, 2013, 12:04:18 PM »

Once again then, why does the amount of time between seeing something, and hearing it, increase with the distance?
Because your eyes are already focused on the end product of that sound that produces the light, so the sound follows behind it.
Are you saying there is no difference in the time between the lighting we see and the thunder we hear when comparing a close strike versus a distant strike?  I've witnessed lighting both close and far.  The further away lightning is, the longer it takes to hear, regardless of my eyes being focused on it the moment of the strike.

It's like you seeing the head light of my bike and as I get closer, you hear the whizz of my tyre dynamo that produces that light. Crude analogy I know.
pointless analogy actually.  A constant light source and sound from a source moving toward me at a much slower pace than the light and sound it's emitting versus a momentary light and sound source.

Once again then, why does the amount of time between seeing something, and hearing it, increase with the distance?
This was already answered.
No it wasn't.  scepti has not answered why it takes longer to hear the thunder after seeing the lightning the further away it is.  He has only stated our ears register it slower. 

If light and sound are traveling the same speed, there would be no difference in the time between seeing and hearing when comparing a close strike versus a distant strike.

Yet there is a difference, a big difference.  Why.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45152
  • +95/-136
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #225 on: October 16, 2013, 12:07:40 PM »
Think carefully about anything on earth that produces light and you will see that it's all created by sound.
Correlation does not imply causation.  Just because things that make light also make sound, that does not necessarily mean that sound causes light.
Yes it does.
You're a sensible person, have a really good ponder over it. You don't have to agree with me in the forum, just really scrutinise everything about sound/ (vibration/friction), and frequency and you will know what creates ALL light no matter which way you look at it.
How closely have you scrutinized light?  Here is something that should blow your mind:
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Double Slit Experiment (Through The Wormhole)
It's certainly not blowing my mind. I don't know what point you are trying to make here.
Do you agree with the results of the double slit experiment or do you believe that it's being misinterpreted by scientists?
I don't see the relevance of it .
Well, you keep saying that sound and light are the same thing, so I was wondering if you can explain how light can act like a particle when sound is a wave?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #226 on: October 16, 2013, 12:10:25 PM »

Once again then, why does the amount of time between seeing something, and hearing it, increase with the distance?
Because your eyes are already focused on the end product of that sound that produces the light, so the sound follows behind it.
Are you saying there is no difference in the time between the lighting we see and the thunder we hear when comparing a close strike versus a distant strike?  I've witnessed lighting both close and far.  The further away lightning is, the longer it takes to hear, regardless of my eyes being focused on it the moment of the strike.

It's like you seeing the head light of my bike and as I get closer, you hear the whizz of my tyre dynamo that produces that light. Crude analogy I know.
pointless analogy actually.  A constant light source and sound from a source moving toward me at a much slower pace than the light and sound it's emitting versus a momentary light and sound source.

Once again then, why does the amount of time between seeing something, and hearing it, increase with the distance?
This was already answered.
No it wasn't.  scepti has not answered why it takes longer to hear the thunder after seeing the lightning the further away it is.  He has only stated our ears register it slower. 

If light and sound are traveling the same speed, there would be no difference in the time between seeing and hearing when comparing a close strike versus a distant strike.

Yet there is a difference, a big difference.  Why.
What happens first, The thunder or the lightning. Not what you see first.....what happens first?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #227 on: October 16, 2013, 12:16:36 PM »
What happens first, The thunder or the lightning. Not what you see first.....what happens first?
Lightning happens first.  Lightning superheats the air that it travels through greatly reducing the air pressure.  As cooler air rushes in to equalize the pressure, the sound that we call thunder occurs.
What creates the lightning.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45152
  • +95/-136
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #228 on: October 16, 2013, 12:21:36 PM »
What happens first, The thunder or the lightning. Not what you see first.....what happens first?
Lightning happens first.  Lightning superheats the air that it travels through greatly reducing the air pressure.  As cooler air rushes in to equalize the pressure, the sound that we call thunder occurs.
What creates the lightning.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_causes_lightning.htm
Quote
Lightning is produced in thunderstorms when liquid and ice particles above the freezing level collide, and build up large electrical fields in the clouds. Once these electric fields become large enough, a giant "spark" occurs between them (or between them and the ground) like static electricity, reducing the charge separation. The lightning spark can occur between clouds, between the cloud and air, or between the cloud and ground.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #229 on: October 16, 2013, 12:25:17 PM »
What happens first, The thunder or the lightning. Not what you see first.....what happens first?
Lightning happens first.  Lightning superheats the air that it travels through greatly reducing the air pressure.  As cooler air rushes in to equalize the pressure, the sound that we call thunder occurs.
What creates the lightning.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_causes_lightning.htm
Quote
Lightning is produced in thunderstorms when liquid and ice particles above the freezing level collide, and build up large electrical fields in the clouds. Once these electric fields become large enough, a giant "spark" occurs between them (or between them and the ground) like static electricity, reducing the charge separation. The lightning spark can occur between clouds, between the cloud and air, or between the cloud and ground.
Friction right? Dense friction.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45152
  • +95/-136
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #230 on: October 16, 2013, 12:31:20 PM »
Yes, friction causes static electricity.  But friction does not directly cause thunder.
Dense friction.
What is "dense friction"?  ???
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #231 on: October 16, 2013, 12:42:02 PM »
Yes, friction causes static electricity.  But friction does not directly cause thunder.
Dense friction.
What is "dense friction"?  ???
Friction through a dense atmosphere, as in dense clouds, I didn't think you needed to have this clarified.
Anyway, the friction is the cause of the thunder by causing the static, so it thunders and lightning  (to our perception in close up) at the same time but the reality is, the friction comes before the light and as I said...close up you will hear the thunder and lighting practically in unison but from distance, you see the light before hearing the thunder because your ears have to wait for the sound wave to reach them.

Like striking a match or striking the flint in your lighter, it's all friction. vibration frequency and energy build up from that, that determines what you see or hear dependent on the frequency.

*

29silhouette

  • 3374
  • +0/-0
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #232 on: October 16, 2013, 12:49:09 PM »
you see the light before hearing the thunder because your ears have to wait for the sound wave to reach them.
So light and sound are separate then and travel at very different speeds.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45152
  • +95/-136
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #233 on: October 16, 2013, 12:56:41 PM »
Anyway, the friction is the cause of the thunder by causing the static...
And what exactly is static?  Static is electricity, right?  And lightning is the discharge of this static electricity, right?  This electric discharge vibrates the air, right?  So, we have lightning which is static electricity and we have thunder which is vibrating air; two completely different things. 

So can we agree that friction can cause completely different phenomena?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • +0/-0
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #234 on: October 16, 2013, 12:57:13 PM »
Scepti, just my two cents,
You're misinterpreting this whole thing again.
Sound does not make light.
Albeit, in certain situations under some precise conditions, sound waves can be employed to produce light.
Mostly it is a byproduct of different chemical and nuclear reactions, or electricity.
The reason friction can cause light to be emitted is that the higher thermal energy something has, the more its electrons are excited.
Obviously, prolonged friction increases thermal energy.
The more the electrons are excited, the higher the electrons jump from their normal state.
The higher they jump, the higher the energy of the photon released is.
That's why molten steel glows.
That's why friction makes things glow.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2013, 09:47:55 PM by th3rm0m3t3r0 »


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

?

hewholikespie

  • 249
  • +0/-0
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #235 on: October 16, 2013, 01:04:07 PM »
My microphone will not pick up lightning. It will not pick up my desk lamp, a flash light, a laser pointer, an LED monitor, Bioluminescent fungi or animal cells, or any other form of light.

That's because these are not sounds, and my Microphone was designed to pick up sounds.

Thunder is a sound. My microphone will pick up thunder. But it will not pick up the flash of lightning. Lightning is not a sound. It's also technically not a light. It produces both light and sound independently of each other.

This is a simple, common sense explanation. Light being a sound is neither simple, nor is is common sense.
Are you not smart enough to realize that humans cannot hear every sound?  Unless that microphone is hooked up to something that measures sound waves, you probably won't hear anything through a speaker.

Sorry, did my speaking about Waveform previously not clue you in that I'm not talking about what the f*ck humans can hear and instead what will produce measurable waveforms that a Microphone can record and a computer can display?
Seriously, you wonder why some people get angry and you toss out lines like 'Are you not smart enough to realize humans cannot hear every sound' without even paying goddamn attention to the thread?

For the attention impaired, My Microphone will RECORD NO WAVEFORMS for those things, because they are not sounds.

Light is the end product of sound. It cannot propagate unless it has matter to do so, it's impossible and should be logical to comprehend that.

So why can I see something happen in the distance, and not hear it until several seconds have passed?

Remember, light travels faster than sound so you see the light before you hear it.  The light didn't create the sound.  The SOUND created the light.

My LED torch produces light without sound. How can that be possible?
Your ears are not conditioned to hear the sound, that's all.

Forget our ears, Microphones should be able to pick up the wave form of light if it is indeed a form of sound.

Light and Sound are not inherently causally linked. Light can be produced without sound, and sound can be produced without light. Light propagates where Sound cannot, and Sound propagates through materials that block or reflect light.
Stand your microphone out when it's thundering and lightning, it will pick up the sound.

My microphone will not pick up lightning. It will not pick up my desk lamp, a flash light, a laser pointer, an LED monitor, Bioluminescent fungi or animal cells, or any other form of light.

That's because these are not sounds, and my Microphone was designed to pick up sounds.

Thunder is a sound. My microphone will pick up thunder. But it will not pick up the flash of lightning. Lightning is not a sound. It's also technically not a light. It produces both light and sound independently of each other.

This is a simple, common sense explanation. Light being a sound is neither simple, nor is is common sense.
Your microphone is not sensitive enough to pick up the vibration of those items but it is good enough to pick up the sound from that lightning strike.

My Microphone will pick up the thunder, because thunder is a sound. It will not pick up Lightning or a Lightbulb or even a High intensity laser because THESE ARE NOT SOUNDS.

And no, 'Dense Friction' is not involved in the buildup of electricity that is the precursor to a Lightning strike.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2013, 01:36:05 AM by jroa »

Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #236 on: October 16, 2013, 02:12:57 PM »
Pie eater,
Go eat some pie and calm down.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • +0/-0
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #237 on: October 16, 2013, 02:36:58 PM »
Light is the end product of sound.

This from someone who thinks the inverse square law is nonsense?? Please excuse me while I ROTFLMAO.

Okay, now that I'm done with that,

sound:
1.
a. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.

light:
1. Physics
a. Electromagnetic radiation that has a wavelength in the range from about 4,000 (violet) to about 7,700 (red) angstroms and may be perceived by the normal unaided human eye.

Yeah, one and the same! ::)
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #238 on: October 16, 2013, 03:57:16 PM »
hewholikespie, please watch your language in the upper fora.  If you feel like using the "F" word, please use it in the CN and AR sections.

Thanks

?

hewholikespie

  • 249
  • +0/-0
Re: Can anyone answer this question.
« Reply #239 on: October 16, 2013, 08:30:27 PM »
Pie eater,
Go eat some pie and calm down.

Actually read the thread before replying half cocked.

You chose to tone troll instead of answer any of my points. QED.

hewholikespie, please watch your language in the upper fora.  If you feel like using the "F" word, please use it in the CN and AR sections.

Thanks

Are you seriously trying to censor my use of the word f*ck? Not as an insult but just to use it?

That's frankly ridiculous. Are there any other naughty words you want to prohibit while we're at it?
« Last Edit: October 17, 2013, 01:34:55 AM by jroa »