Implication under debate: "Light is not heat; except when it's part of the radiative transfer of energy from hot objects to cold ones."
quote:
Following the implications of this, say we have a hot object and a cold object, both emitting EMR with a profile appropriate to temperature. Some proportion of this EMR from each strikes the other and is absorbed, but only the EMR from the hotter to the colder object is heat, according to your definition. This means the EMR from the colder to the hotter is...what? You've said it isn't heat, but then what is it? This seems contradictory.
—Percy
I think the implication is wrong as well. I do agree that light is photons which have the capability of heating an object. However, light itself is not heat. In your example the colder object is still heating the hotter object through EMR, just at a slower rate than the hotter object's heat loss, in keeping with the Laws of Thermo. If heat transfer is through EMR I think Sylas was incorrect when he stated "from hot objects to cold ones". If he removes that part of the statement I think he is correct.
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-07-2005 16:08 AM