4 ms·
Physicists (even those who work in optics) routinely use light to mean anything on the EM spectrum, so I'm not sure where you're getting the "right" technical d
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
Physicists (even those who work in optics) routinely use light to mean anything on the EM spectrum, so I'm not sure where you're getting the "right" technical definition.
- sandworm101 10y agoBecause this is a firefighter's definition for use in a courtroom. It isnt about physics but the realities of flame. In the real world there are things like "invisible fire", common at racetracks during the day, that need to be accounted for. Tge physics of stellar astronomy do not.
- johncolanduoni 10y ago"nor is it generally called light" sure doesn't sound like it's talking about the specific, legally relevant definition used by firefighters. Also most physicists whose work is centered around EM radiation aren't astrophysicists and plenty of them work specifically with visible light, so your patronization is off the mark.
- sandworm101 10y agoMost physicists also do not have much experiance with uncontrolled fire. To say that all fires produce light will be confusing if trying to explain non-visible flames to a lay jury.