Subject: Re: Mixing it...
From: Alexandra Hettergott (email@example.com)
Date: Sun May 23 1999 - 06:01:34 EDT
Kevin Austin wrote :
>My understanding is that the concept of frequency is only one form of
>modeling time / amplitude fluctation. I guess to have frequency, we first
>of all have to have time, and (if I recall correctly) in Hawking's "Brief
>History of Time", while he talks about it, he never says what time "is".
Okay, I was mentioning the one aspect only, yet not exclusively, for you were
referring to this term with regard to a psychoacoustic context (and the notion
"frequency" might be as abstract as you want it to be...).
>I've always had some
>difficulty with the concept of an external "objective" reality.
Sure, this is why I said it is only an "approximation" ; yet if those mathematical
terms wouldn't exist as "common denomination", also Einstein and Hawking would have
had difficulties in describing their ideas (and they didn't have something against
trigonometrical functions, either, I bet).
If somebody is speaking of some "A sin omega t" oscillating with 440Hz and you are
able to turn on your sinus generator at home and generate the _same_ frequency of a
440Hz-sine tone (for which then both frequency and pitch would be the same, not to
forget about the amplitude), so this is yet something "universal", verifiable.
>If a very bad soprano sings an 'A' (440 Hz) on a train, traveling away
>from me at 200 meters/sec (720 kmh), is it fast enough?
You could also ask : are you (am I) fast enough...?
And, for the Doppler effect does also exist in the visual domain : how does the bad
soprano look like now (slightly turning red -- or was it since she was singing so
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 13:08:58 EDT