Wrong. I found your definition here. American Heritage Dictionary definition of SOUND You conveniently quoted definition "c" Look at definition "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.
It depends on what the definition of fart is, whether it's a wet one and if there are receptors to receive it... /smrt
I used definition #1 from dictionary.com which took it from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, first edition 1966. American Heritage Dictionary's first edition was 1969. You lose.
The date of origin doesn't make one definition right and the other wrong. Its obvious that a source with a more scientific tilt is needed at this point. I've lost interest to actually dig through the web to find one though.
I find it delightfully ironic that the purpose of this thread was to distract people so they would cease getting into an endless debate over matters of science.
According to Merriam-Webster sound is: 1 a: a particular auditory impression 1 b: the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing 1 c: mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing Now, these are three VERY different definitions of the same word. One is an impression, the other a sensation (both metaphysical), and the third is a physical item: energy. Two people can be exposed to the the same sound and hear two different things and/or interperet them two different ways. But the energy is the same, no matter what. Thus, you must state what definition of "sound" you are asking for: the physical or the metaphysical. Without that information, there can be no answer.
You know, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the sole purpose of some people who work for dictionary companies is strictly to try to ruin other peoples' days.. Having said that, even these 'definitions' which purport to define the radiant waves themselves as 'sound' remain vague and imprecise.. "..and is the objective cause of hearing" ..? To me, that appears to be trying to define the cause and the effect as one and the same.. weird.
