It says "ow."

Plants do like noise. Plants exposed to a set frequency of sound tend to germinate more quickly, grow taller and weigh more than those kept in silence. Both 50,000 hz ultrasound (above the human hearing range) and 5,000 hz sound seem to work. Therefore, there's a good chance that plants like any sound you might play for them, including music.

YES]Does music affect plant growth - Gardening with Kids Forum - GardenWeb[/url] it does! They did an expiriment on Myth Busters once. They had 5 identical greenhouses set up. One they played nice soft music, One had heavy metal, one had someone's voice talking nicely to the plants, one had someone yelling and screaming at the plants, and the last had no noise. The one w/ no noise, the plants were half the size as the others. The one that did the best was the Heavy metal. The rest I think were pretty much the same, except for the control greenhouse.

This is actually really thought-provoking. :a-ok:

I had agreed with most members so far - that sound is the product of the mind registering sound waves. But that is so characteristic of the proposition "man is the measure of all things"! What if we were to drift away from the humanistic narcissism?

By ascibing the tree anthropomorphic attributes (alliteration ahoy!), we see that humans are not the only receptive organisms. Sound waves affect plants too.

I don't know how accurate this is, but according to this site:


What about vibrations produced by sound waves? Does that promote (or stunt) plant growth?



Is this an example of plants "hearing" sound, at their own level? If so, then the answer to the question "if a tree fell etc..." is yes.

Then the real question arises: "If a tree fell, and no living organisms were around in a close enough proximity to recieve the sound waves, would it make a sound?"

Of course. As I pointed out, you can easily prove it by leaving a sound-recorder around the tree, and then listening to it later. Guess what you will hear (if the recorder is working)? The sound the tree made "when there were no living organisms around close enough to receive the sound waves".

You are not hearing the tree making a sound. You are hearing a second-hand documentation of the tree making a sound.

Technically, the recorder makes a sound, not the tree.

"If a tree fell and nobody was there..." If no one was there, how do we know the tree fell in the first place?

According to who?

If there is a soda can on a tree stump, in the middle of the forest, and noone knows about it is it still a soda can?

Things can exist only if there is a prior definition about it. Chicken or egg comes first?.

Neither!.

Unless you define , it can not exist even if you see it. If you have no word to describe it , it can not and will not exist.

Oo uhmmmm ...so things pop into reality only by our definition?

But, he did not say that. He said that things cannot exist unless they have a definition. He did not say that when we define something, it exists. He said that definition is a necessary condition of existence, not a sufficient condition of existence.

But, anyway, of course he is wrong. Definitions are not necessary conditions of existence anymore than they are sufficient conditions of existence. Bacteria existed before even the word, "Bacteria" existed, and so, before the definition of the word, "bacteria".

Yes, no, aha, ok, I see, yes ..eh, yes mr Nit Picker!! ..I agree.