Full moon

I made a roughly to-scale picture of the deal.

Here's the link, you may want to download it to view more easily (embedding it would be crazy): http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/8215/solarb.png

That's pretty neat.

And a physics professor who thought the moon phases were caused by the earth's shadow... interesting.

Thork came with the fundamental error, that it is impossible that there could be a full moon with a round earth.

Let's write down the real-world observations first. We see a full moon. We also see the moon crescent.

Evidence provided by Thork




The same problem is there with a disc, so these images proof nothing. Instead the images of the round earth are incorrect. The size of the sun is way too small. And the sun is much further away than is shown in these images.

What happens when you put the sun in the correct size and distance? Some point behind the earth, the sun rays cross each other. So no matter whether you are behind the earth, if you are far enough away you will see the sun again. As you can see in this basic paint image

Your assumption is that the moon's light comes from the sun.  This is an assumption and not proved.  Scientist still can't figure out "cold" light such as that light created by fire flys. But, they do know this type of light is absent of heat and the moon's light is more likely the same type of heatless light. 

This is a ridiculous assertion.  We know how cold light works.

Your assumption is that the moon's light comes from the sun.  This is an assumption and not proved.  Scientist still can't figure out "cold" light such as that light created by fire flys. But, they do know this type of light is absent of heat and the moon's light is more likely the same type of heatless light.

Make my day, then explain to me how the moon sometimes is waxing, then waning.

And for your information, the "cold" light of fireflies you refer to. It has been explained by scientists already...

Your assumption is that the moon's light comes from the sun.  This is an assumption and not proved.  Scientist still can't figure out "cold" light such as that light created by fire flys. But, they do know this type of light is absent of heat and the moon's light is more likely the same type of heatless light.

Every sentence except the first is false. I'd say this is the dumbest thing I've ever read, but sadly, it's not even close.

Please show me where they have replicated something that emits 100% of its energy as light in heatless fashion and I'll gladly eat crow.  Once you've googled your little heart out and come up empty handed, please eat crow in like fashion. Thank you

Please show me where they have replicated something that emits 100% of its energy as light in heatless fashion and I'll gladly eat crow.  Once you've googled your little heart out and come up empty handed, please eat crow in like fashion. Thank you

Who are you talking to, and why would you need proof of something that emits 100% of its energy?
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/sank0054/3101newsspring2012_/2012/03/mit-researchers-have-built-a-led-device-that-converts-heat-to-light.html

Bon appetit

Quote from: chuck22 on May 15, 2013, 06:07:49 PM

Please show me where they have replicated something that emits 100% of its energy as light in heatless fashion and I'll gladly eat crow.  Once you've googled your little heart out and come up empty handed, please eat crow in like fashion. Thank you

Who are you talking to, and why would you need proof of something that emits 100% of its energy?
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/sank0054/3101newsspring2012_/2012/03/mit-researchers-have-built-a-led-device-that-converts-heat-to-light.html

Bon appetit

Great article.  Didn't see the relation to what we are conversing about though, "cold light", you know; as in light producing ZERO heat. 

Please show me where they have replicated something that emits 100% of its energy as light in heatless fashion and I'll gladly eat crow.  Once you've googled your little heart out and come up empty handed, please eat crow in like fashion. Thank you

Why did you shift the goal posts? You started by asking about "cold light such as that emitted fireflys" to light that emits no heat at all. If you made a mistake, just admit it.

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 15, 2013, 06:36:43 PM

Quote from: chuck22 on May 15, 2013, 06:07:49 PM

Please show me where they have replicated something that emits 100% of its energy as light in heatless fashion and I'll gladly eat crow.  Once you've googled your little heart out and come up empty handed, please eat crow in like fashion. Thank you

Who are you talking to, and why would you need proof of something that emits 100% of its energy?
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/sank0054/3101newsspring2012_/2012/03/mit-researchers-have-built-a-led-device-that-converts-heat-to-light.html

Bon appetit

Great article.  Didn't see the relation to what we are conversing about though, "cold light", you know; as in light producing ZERO heat. 

This LED's net heat effect is to reduce the temperature around it. It's pretty damn cold wouldn't you say?

Please show me where they have replicated something that emits 100% of its energy as light in heatless fashion and I'll gladly eat crow.  Once you've googled your little heart out and come up empty handed, please eat crow in like fashion. Thank you

I don't need to google anything, just about every non incandescent light source produced by man is able to emit light in the absence of heat. Any LED, florescent bulb and the completely understood and replicate blend chemical light produced by many insects can produce light with far less heat density than in light "produced" by the moon. Welcome to FES, I have a feeling you'll fit right in.

Quote from: chuck22 on May 15, 2013, 06:07:49 PM

Please show me where they have replicated something that emits 100% of its energy as light in heatless fashion and I'll gladly eat crow.  Once you've googled your little heart out and come up empty handed, please eat crow in like fashion. Thank you

I don't need to google anything, just about every non incandescent light source produced by man is able to emit light in the absence of heat. Any LED, florescent bulb and the completely understood and replicate blend chemical light produced by many insects can produce light with far less heat density than in light "produced" by the moon. Welcome to FES, I have a feeling you'll fit right in.

Dear Sir Eatscrowalot,
Not in the absence of heat, WITH the absence of heat.  And just so you know, LED's do produce heat. See in the Myth#5 section: http://www.ledlightingexplained.com/led-lighting-myths/ you round earthers will try and pass anything off as science won't you?

Quote from: jason_85 on May 16, 2013, 05:23:40 PM

Quote from: chuck22 on May 15, 2013, 06:07:49 PM

Please show me where they have replicated something that emits 100% of its energy as light in heatless fashion and I'll gladly eat crow.  Once you've googled your little heart out and come up empty handed, please eat crow in like fashion. Thank you

I don't need to google anything, just about every non incandescent light source produced by man is able to emit light in the absence of heat. Any LED, florescent bulb and the completely understood and replicate blend chemical light produced by many insects can produce light with far less heat density than in light "produced" by the moon. Welcome to FES, I have a feeling you'll fit right in.

Dear Sir Eatscrowalot,
Not in the absence of heat, WITH the absence of heat.  And just so you know, LED's do produce heat. See in the Myth#5 section: http://www.ledlightingexplained.com/led-lighting-myths/ you round earthers will try and pass anything off as science won't you?

And why did you shift the goalposts?  And just in case you wanted to understand what you posted, the light produced by an LED is cool, but the apparatus is not.  that is by definition Cold Light.  Now I will just sit back and watch you move the goalposts again.

Rowbotham?
Never heard of him outside of this forum funny enough
.
Were any of his Scientific journals peer reviewed and accepted by mainstream Science,
or was/is he just another nut job that wrote a book that convinced a minority.

It wouldn't be the first time that happened :rolleyes:

Where is his Nobel prize by the way?
and would it take Indiana Jones to find a library containing a hard copy of his books?

You realise that proving the Earth was flat would make a Scientist immortal?

Quote from: chuck22 on May 16, 2013, 07:04:41 PM

Quote from: jason_85 on May 16, 2013, 05:23:40 PM

Quote from: chuck22 on May 15, 2013, 06:07:49 PM

Please show me where they have replicated something that emits 100% of its energy as light in heatless fashion and I'll gladly eat crow.  Once you've googled your little heart out and come up empty handed, please eat crow in like fashion. Thank you

I don't need to google anything, just about every non incandescent light source produced by man is able to emit light in the absence of heat. Any LED, florescent bulb and the completely understood and replicate blend chemical light produced by many insects can produce light with far less heat density than in light "produced" by the moon. Welcome to FES, I have a feeling you'll fit right in.

Dear Sir Eatscrowalot,
Not in the absence of heat, WITH the absence of heat.  And just so you know, LED's do produce heat. See in the Myth#5 section: http://www.ledlightingexplained.com/led-lighting-myths/ you round earthers will try and pass anything off as science won't you?

And why did you shift the goalposts?  And just in case you wanted to understand what you posted, the light produced by an LED is cool, but the apparatus is not.  that is by definition Cold Light.  Now I will just sit back and watch you move the goalposts again.

Would light reflected off paper be cold light?

I doubt it. Some heat would be reflected as well.

Light consists of photons, which carry energy. Any beam of light hitting an object will interact with it exchanging energy; one of the low-energy interactions is to change the vibrational state of molecules or cause dielectric heating, i.e. increase the temperature.

A photon either passes through a body unimpeded, or interacts with it, causing either ionization or just heating. Ionization is a much higher-energy interaction, and because of that, it will inevitably cause increase in temperature by itself, too. A beam of light, consisting of countless photons will always have at least some fraction of them interacting, so I don't think this cold light thing you're talking about is possible.

Basically, if any light from anywhere is falling on an object (light reflected from a piece of paper, whatever), it will give that object energy, most of it inevitably ending up as heat.

Your assumption is that the moon's light comes from the sun.  This is an assumption and not proved.  Scientist still can't figure out "cold" light such as that light created by fire flys. But, they do know this type of light is absent of heat and the moon's light is more likely the same type of heatless light.

So that means that if the moon gives off heat, then you are wrong and the moon is lit by something other than glow worms, fire flies or space crabs. Incoming infrared pwnage in 3....2.....1....

Uh oh, its from NASA.gov, must be part of the conspiracy! Photo was taken in 1992, so they must have predicted that the FES would one day invent this theory of bioluminescent moon critters producing "heatless" light. They are just that good.

Well, in the spirit of zeteticism, why don't you go out and buy an infrared camera and test it for your self.

Quote from: jason_85 on May 16, 2013, 05:23:40 PM

Quote from: chuck22 on May 15, 2013, 06:07:49 PM

Please show me where they have replicated something that emits 100% of its energy as light in heatless fashion and I'll gladly eat crow.  Once you've googled your little heart out and come up empty handed, please eat crow in like fashion. Thank you

I don't need to google anything, just about every non incandescent light source produced by man is able to emit light in the absence of heat. Any LED, florescent bulb and the completely understood and replicate blend chemical light produced by many insects can produce light with far less heat density than in light "produced" by the moon. Welcome to FES, I have a feeling you'll fit right in.

Dear Sir Eatscrowalot,
Not in the absence of heat, WITH the absence of heat.  And just so you know, LED's do produce heat. See in the Myth#5 section: http://www.ledlightingexplained.com/led-lighting-myths/ you round earthers will try and pass anything off as science won't you?

"With" and "in" can mean the same thing in that context, sorry to take away your little face saving victory but my grammar is fine and you're still an ignoramus. LEDs can produce heat, but do not need to. An electron sink does not produce heat, only photons (which can be converted to heat at a later stage). There are plenty of other ways of producing light without heat.

This is a really dumb discussion. I don't know why I get myself into this shit... I feel like I'm kicking a cat.

Light consists of photons, which carry energy. Any beam of light hitting an object will interact with it exchanging energy; one of the low-energy interactions is to change the vibrational state of molecules or cause dielectric heating, i.e. increase the temperature.

A photon either passes through a body unimpeded, or interacts with it, causing either ionization or just heating. Ionization is a much higher-energy interaction, and because of that, it will inevitably cause increase in temperature by itself, too. A beam of light, consisting of countless photons will always have at least some fraction of them interacting, so I don't think this cold light thing you're talking about is possible.

Basically, if any light from anywhere is falling on an object (light reflected from a piece of paper, whatever), it will give that object energy, most of it inevitably ending up as heat.

You are mixing a lot of things into a simple enough problem. First, every single object that is not at a temperature of 0 degrees Kelvin  is radiating heat. Even an ice cube in the Saharan noon is radiating heat. So, if your definition of "cool" is no heat radiation at all, no object in the whole known universe fills your expectations. Second, if your nights are sleepless because a LED or the tail of a firefly get warmer than room temperature, you can always get an air conditioner and keep the area around the light source colder than room temperature.

And I don't know about LEDs, but lasers produce a very narrow frequency spectrum. A ruby laser, for example, produces an almost perfect single frequency of red light. This frequency is given by the quantum levels of energy possible within the ruby, so this is really cool light, in the sense that the spectrum of frequencies coming from the laser does not extend in any way into the infrared. I believe the same is true for LEDs.

And now, your confusion about white paper. The paper absorbs energy and re-emits it in a different frequency. Some of these frequencies are, in fact, what we call heat. This does not mean that the light itself is "hot" in any way. Light is not heat because it might in the future produce heat, just as I am not a corpse because I will eventually become one.

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 17, 2013, 05:23:53 AM

Light consists of photons, which carry energy. Any beam of light hitting an object will interact with it exchanging energy; one of the low-energy interactions is to change the vibrational state of molecules or cause dielectric heating, i.e. increase the temperature.

A photon either passes through a body unimpeded, or interacts with it, causing either ionization or just heating. Ionization is a much higher-energy interaction, and because of that, it will inevitably cause increase in temperature by itself, too. A beam of light, consisting of countless photons will always have at least some fraction of them interacting, so I don't think this cold light thing you're talking about is possible.

Basically, if any light from anywhere is falling on an object (light reflected from a piece of paper, whatever), it will give that object energy, most of it inevitably ending up as heat.

You are mixing a lot of things into a simple enough problem. First, every single object that is not at a temperature of 0 degrees Kelvin  is radiating heat. Even an ice cube in the Saharan noon is radiating heat. So, if your definition of "cool" is no heat radiation at all, no object in the whole known universe fills your expectations. Second, if your nights are sleepless because a LED or the tail of a firefly get warmer than room temperature, you can always get an air conditioner and keep the area around the light source colder than room temperature.

And I don't know about LEDs, but lasers produce a very narrow frequency spectrum. A ruby laser, for example, produces an almost perfect single frequency of red light. This frequency is given by the quantum levels of energy possible within the ruby, so this is really cool light, in the sense that the spectrum of frequencies coming from the laser does not extend in any way into the infrared. I believe the same is true for LEDs.

And now, your confusion about white paper. The paper absorbs energy and re-emits it in a different frequency. Some of these frequencies are, in fact, what we call heat. This does not mean that the light itself is "hot" in any way. Light is not heat because it might in the future produce heat, just as I am not a corpse because I will eventually become one.

Of course light is not "hot" in any conventional way (a photon gas has temperature, but temperature works differently in gases). But I think you believe only infrared photons cause transfer of heat, but that's not true.

And of course, every object radiates light, depending on its temperature, as a gray body, and obviously an object doesn't necessarily increase in temperature if it's illuminated. But my point was that any illumination is always giving energy to that body in form of heat, even if the object is otherwise losing heat faster and is actually cooling.

I think the problem here is, I don't really understand this simple enough problem you guys are chatting about, what you mean by 'cold light' here. I haven't heard that expression anywhere before.

EDIT: Funny that you mention lasers: For a laser to work, the active medium must achieve population inversion, which results in the system having a negative absolute temperature by definition. Of course, this is of no practical use to anyone, I just thought that it fits the discussion.

Let's not get trolled into tedious arguments over semantics. All that matters is that the light side of the moon is significantly warmer than the dark side of the moon. It is not lit by a "heatless" light source, no matter how you want to define a heatless light source. That's it. No moon bugs. End of debate on that. Let's move on to more important things.

Quote from: RealScientist on May 17, 2013, 06:37:51 AM

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 17, 2013, 05:23:53 AM

Light consists of photons, which carry energy. Any beam of light hitting an object will interact with it exchanging energy; one of the low-energy interactions is to change the vibrational state of molecules or cause dielectric heating, i.e. increase the temperature.

A photon either passes through a body unimpeded, or interacts with it, causing either ionization or just heating. Ionization is a much higher-energy interaction, and because of that, it will inevitably cause increase in temperature by itself, too. A beam of light, consisting of countless photons will always have at least some fraction of them interacting, so I don't think this cold light thing you're talking about is possible.

Basically, if any light from anywhere is falling on an object (light reflected from a piece of paper, whatever), it will give that object energy, most of it inevitably ending up as heat.

You are mixing a lot of things into a simple enough problem. First, every single object that is not at a temperature of 0 degrees Kelvin  is radiating heat. Even an ice cube in the Saharan noon is radiating heat. So, if your definition of "cool" is no heat radiation at all, no object in the whole known universe fills your expectations. Second, if your nights are sleepless because a LED or the tail of a firefly get warmer than room temperature, you can always get an air conditioner and keep the area around the light source colder than room temperature.

And I don't know about LEDs, but lasers produce a very narrow frequency spectrum. A ruby laser, for example, produces an almost perfect single frequency of red light. This frequency is given by the quantum levels of energy possible within the ruby, so this is really cool light, in the sense that the spectrum of frequencies coming from the laser does not extend in any way into the infrared. I believe the same is true for LEDs.

And now, your confusion about white paper. The paper absorbs energy and re-emits it in a different frequency. Some of these frequencies are, in fact, what we call heat. This does not mean that the light itself is "hot" in any way. Light is not heat because it might in the future produce heat, just as I am not a corpse because I will eventually become one.

Of course light is not "hot" in any conventional way (a photon gas has temperature, but temperature works differently in gases). But I think you believe only infrared photons cause transfer of heat, but that's not true.

And of course, every object radiates light, depending on its temperature, as a gray body, and obviously an object doesn't necessarily increase in temperature if it's illuminated. But my point was that any illumination is always giving energy to that body in form of heat, even if the object is otherwise losing heat faster and is actually cooling.

I think the problem here is, I don't really understand this simple enough problem you guys are chatting about, what you mean by 'cold light' here. I haven't heard that expression anywhere before.

EDIT: Funny that you mention lasers: For a laser to work, the active medium must achieve population inversion, which results in the system having a negative absolute temperature by definition. Of course, this is of no practical use to anyone, I just thought that it fits the discussion.

What is a photon gas?

Every object radiates light?

"any illumination is always giving energy to that body in form of heat"?

EDIT: Funny that you mention lasers: For a laser to work, the active medium must achieve population inversion, which results in the system having a negative absolute temperature by definition. Of course, this is of no practical use to anyone, I just thought that it fits the discussion.

I was reading about this and it is not literally a negative Kelvin value, but merely a system that has some properties you would expect from a negative Kelvin value.  Apparently one of the properties of this is that you can create a system that produces heat with better than 100% efficiency.  I imagine this is at the expense of the energy to get the system in to such a state, but it could have increduble applications.

What is a photon gas?

Every object radiates light?

"any illumination is always giving energy to that body in form of heat"?

Maybe a photon condensate?

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 17, 2013, 07:00:24 AM

EDIT: Funny that you mention lasers: For a laser to work, the active medium must achieve population inversion, which results in the system having a negative absolute temperature by definition. Of course, this is of no practical use to anyone, I just thought that it fits the discussion.

I was reading about this and it is not literally a negative Kelvin value, but merely a system that has some properties you would expect from a negative Kelvin value.  Apparently one of the properties of this is that you can create a system that produces heat with better than 100% efficiency.  I imagine this is at the expense of the energy to get the system in to such a state, but it could have increduble applications.

No, it's literally negative Kelvin value, but it's not a "real" temperature, it's just that when you write the population of the energy levels of electrons in the active atoms, using the Boltzmann distribution, the only way you can get a population inversion (meaning more electrons on the higher energy level), as it happens in a laser, is if the temperature of the electron system is negative. Again, this is not a "real" temperature, and anyway, electron temperature doesn't have much of an effect on a body's temperature.

What is a photon gas?

Every object radiates light?

"any illumination is always giving energy to that body in form of heat"?

1. It's a model of what happens, for instance, inside a closed box that behaves as a perfect black body, at a given temperature. The inner walls of the box are constantly creating photons that are absorbed on the other end, creating standing waves, and the model is called photon gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_gas

2. Yes, like you said yourself, through black body radiation (or gray body, in the real world case - only black holes are near perfect black bodies). Any object above nonzero temperature radiates a spectrum of electromagnetic radiation (i.e. light), dependent on its temperature. Light does not necessarily mean visible light, mind you. Visible light is only emitted above 800K in the case of a perfect black body.

You do know that visible light, infrared, microwaves, radio waves, X-rays and gamma rays are all basically the same thing? Photons with different wavelengths.

3. Yes, any incident ray of photons falling on a body will interact with the matter of said body, transferring energy to it by various means, each one of which ends up as heat at a given point.

Any object above nonzero temperature radiates a spectrum of electromagnetic radiation (i.e. light), dependent on its temperature.

I'm sorry to tell you,  but in Science you have to be a lot better with definitions than what you are being here. Light is visible light and maybe the near infrared and near ultraviolet. Other frequencies of electromagnetic radiation have significantly different physical properties and have different names.

You can make a lot of dramatic sounding claims by stretching the definitions of things to their breaking points, but that is not science, it is the same kind of word games that Flat Earthers use to make claims where there is nothing of any worth.

Just like the claim that you cannot have light without heat, you might have half a point hidden inside the details of poorly defined terms but you do not have any science of any worth behind them.

Now, you can say that any object that is not at perfect 0 degrees Kelvin radiates heat and that they even radiate light in significant quantities if they are heated above 2000 degrees Kelvin, and we all will happily agree.

Quote from: icanbeanything on May 17, 2013, 01:51:09 PM

Any object above nonzero temperature radiates a spectrum of electromagnetic radiation (i.e. light), dependent on its temperature.

I'm sorry to tell you,  but in Science you have to be a lot better with definitions than what you are being here. Light is visible light and maybe the near infrared and near ultraviolet. Other frequencies of electromagnetic radiation have significantly different physical properties and have different names.

You can make a lot of dramatic sounding claims by stretching the definitions of things to their breaking points, but that is not science, it is the same kind of word games that Flat Earthers use to make claims where there is nothing of any worth.

Just like the claim that you cannot have light without heat, you might have half a point hidden inside the details of poorly defined terms but you do not have any science of any worth behind them.

Now, you can say that any object that is not at perfect 0 degrees Kelvin radiates heat and that they even radiate light in significant quantities if they are heated above 2000 degrees Kelvin, and we all will happily agree.

Well, I think it's you who is confused about the terminology and definitions. You will see countless examples where Electromagnetic Radiation is replaced by "light", just because it's shorter. That is precisely why the term "visible light" exists. If light already referred to only the visible portion of the EM spectrum, why would that term even exist?

While the term Electromagnetic Radiation is the correct one, and any scientific paper will use it, among ourselves we often use "light" or "photons" instead, because it's shorter. Another good example of this - light speed. It's not called Electromagnetic Radiation Speed, even though that's what it should be called.

Any kind of EM radiation consists of photons. Other frequencies of electromagnetic radiation differ from visible light only by the frequency of the photons (and in conjunction, wavelength, energy, momentum etc., all derivable from frequency). If you want to really be scientific as I can see you try to be, we should be using equations here, which I definitely could if you want to, but I doubt that would lead to constructive discussion.

Now, you can say that any object that is not at perfect 0 degrees Kelvin radiates heat

Black Body Radiation is EM radiation. Any body above 0 Kelvin (don't say degrees, Kelvin isn't degrees) radiates a spectrum of EM radiation (i.e. light - not necessarily visible). The radiation always contains the full EM spectrum, but the visible spectrum part only starts becoming significant in power above 800 Kelvin, below which you can't detect it in the emission.

Your statement is correct in that this is exactly how heat radiation happens. Think of two objects close to each other. Both emit EM radiation because of them being above 0K. The emission of each reaches the other, and the photons deposit some of their energy as heat. So there's a transfer of energy between the two objects. Now, whichever is at a higher temperature will have a much stronger emission (much more radiated power), and conversely it will be transferring more energy per unit time to the other object as it is receiving from it. Therefore, the net result is a transfer of heat from the hotter object to the colder one.

I assure you, I'm using as correct a terminology as possible. Consider that I'm not spending days composing a post like this. But I think the problem here is not me using poor definitions, it's you not knowing these definitions well.

EDIT: Look, I'm not attacking you, I don't want my message to convey that. But it really does seem to me that this is the case. I don't blame you, and I'm not trying to bash you.

I am correct. A full moon is geometrically impossible with the round earth model.

A lunar eclipse is what happens at a perfect full moon.

You will see countless examples where Electromagnetic Radiation is replaced by "light", just because it's shorter. That is precisely why the term "visible light" exists. If light already referred to only the visible portion of the EM spectrum, why would that term even exist?

I agree with almost all of what you say, and I believe you know a lot about the Electromagnetic Spectrum. But places like this one exist in part because people try to give more power to words than words really have. Because Einstein used the word aether once there are people here who declare that it exists and is the solution to all of FE'ers problems. Because real scientists talk about dark energy and dark matter, people here declare that dark energy can actually push us at more than 99.9999999999999999999 of c without destroying us.

Scientists do use the term "light" with less than obsessive precision, but this does not extend all the way from low frequency radio to gamma rays. Usually "light" can extend far into the infrared and far into the ultraviolet or not. But it always refers to what you can refract with lenses. "Visible light" is also less than a precise term, but it refers to what humans can see and has a very practical, not a scientific meaning. It refers to what we can observe, not exactly to a physical property.

You and I can jump from EM and antennas to EM and lenses to EM and quasars in a single sentence and still understand each other. But that is not the usual level of scientific understanding in this forum.

Right, I won't use light instead of EM radiation anymore. I do agree, it's ambiguous and easy to misinterpret, though I like to use it because it's simple. I was just trying to emphasize the fact that visible light and gamma rays and radio waves etc. are basically the same phenomenon, an idea which is hard to grasp for many people, and could (and in this thread, actually did) lead to many stupid sentences about color temperature, emission spectra, reflection of "heat" and the like.