Things just look different under a microscope
Emphasis mine:
The compression and ramification is very important. Without it there would not be sound.
This is the big picture of sound. From a big picture view it makes sense. And we can only look under the hood to the molecular level once we understand the big picture. I illustrated this by using your heat idea to invoke anti-gravity.
We know that the energy compresses the air as it travels. Thus by looking at the scatter graph we can see how the sound energy is distributed.
Temperature is one of three properties illustrated by the Ideal Gas Law. The other two are pressure and volume.
When the band of energy arrives the air volume decreases, we can see that in the scatter graph. This decrease in volume will effect the heat and or the pressure. Unless our ears are infrared detectors there has to be an increase in pressure. I have yet to see anything that indicated how much heat increase there is.
As much as you would like to dismiss pressure it is the most important of the three. Without it sound would not be heard.
I'm not trying to dismiss pressure. But, I'm trying to introduce the pressure in a manner that allows it to propagate at Mach 1.
To say that the speaker cone moves and that creates a band of pressure sounds good. To then say that the pressure pushes on other molecules and so the pressure extends out into the air space also sounds good. To say that you can go out some distance into the air space and see (directly measure) the pressure, sounds good. But, good as it sounds it doesn't address the topic of this thread. What is the
mechanism for propelling the sound out into the air space at Mach 1.
For the scatter graph to make sense in the "big picture view" it needs to be put into context. Just sitting there, it could be a plot of air pressure change by mounting a speaker so it drives its energy into a box and you measure the pressure change in the box over time to make a plot. But, if you're measuring what's zipping past you at Mach 1, in the air, it's necessary to see the plot as some measure of
distance. It's a snapshot of what the pressures are from a selected point A to point B in the air space. Of course, that still doesn't address the mechanism for
how the pressures got there.
But, if you look at the problem not as an air pressure issue but, as what is happening at the molecular level, then you
can get a sense of the mechanism for how you can get those pressures out where you expect them to be based on the speed of sound. But, examining it on the molecular level means that you need to think about what's happening differently, too. You need to ask just what represents that pressure on a molecule-by-molecule basis.
Making the examination at the molecular level doesn't mean that anything works any differently or that it negates measurements you might make at other scales. It's not a competition.
If looking at the big picture of sound answered the question of
how it propagates, then this thread wouldn't even exist. But, it doesn't and thus the thread does exist.
I know you were being a bit facetious, but you brought up an interesting point. Are our ears
infared detectors? Probably. Are the nerves in our bodies that tell us if something is hot or cold
infared detectors? Sure, why not. Are our eyes
electromagnetic wave detectors. Absolutely.
As regards yoiur earlier comment about keeping this thread going forever. Actually, I feel like the question has basically been answered. If it stopped right here, I would feel like it's done its job. But, there are a lot of loose ends and bits and pieces and ancillary items that are are fair game to discuss under the umbrella of this topic as well. When it will stop is something I suppose will happen naturally when enough people get bored with the thread and discontinue posting ideas and responses.