Tongue-in-Check question about "light"

[xpatUSA]

Why do we say "visible light" when "light" by definition ** is visible?

** Ted's Law: "Laaht ain't laaht if'n yew cain't seeyut."

Pardon my pedantry ...

[William W]

If someone hasn't "seen the light" is that because the light that they are looking at is invisible, or are they simply blind: and what if they were "blinded by the light", did they in fact see the light before they were blinded?

These and other matters I ponder whilst watching re-runs of Walker Texas Ranger.

Thank you Ted, for adding yet another Subject of Pontificating to help fill my insomniac hours.

As a by the way here are other (non photographic) matters which annoy:

"ATM machine"
“totally destroyed”
“[people] being evacuated”
“verbal” when used to mean spoken word only
“totally unique”
[people] surviving “electrocution”

WW

[odds]

..."light" by definition ** is visible?

How come my maple syrup light was invisible this morning?
--
Odd S.

[xpatUSA]

<um ...>

These and other matters I ponder whilst watching re-runs of Walker Texas Ranger.

Thank you Ted, for adding yet another Subject of Pontificating to help fill my insomniac hours.

As a by the way here are other (non photographic) matters which annoy:

"ATM machine"
“totally destroyed”
“[people] being evacuated”
“verbal” when used to mean spoken word only
“totally unique”
[people] surviving “electrocution”

WW

Bill -I also ponder sometimes while watching Dr Blake or Miss Fisher -although being a Pom helps me a lot in that regard.

The list of non-photographic "redundant join-ups" here in Uhmerka is too long to even start, but their phrase "deja vu all over again" is particularly irritating. :|

[Tronhard]

Ones that frustrate me are phrases such as:

"Up to (amount), or even more..." how can it be up to that amount if it can be exceeded, I wonder.

Yesterday morning at 7:00am. (Redundant information).

"Like" itself when used as a filler where the could be a pause. e.g. "I saw this, like, awesome show, it was, like, amazing!" Its use, where a pause would be appropriate, seems to be a right of passage for teenagers and young 20-somethings, and then most of them seem to grow out of it. Sitting on a train the other day I was forced to listen to a couple of teenage girls talking loudly about their private lives (as they tend to do) and in one minute managed to log one of them using the word like 14 times! That was, like, amazing...

If someone hasn't "seen the light" is that because the light that they are looking at is invisible, or are they simply blind: and what if they were "blinded by the light", did they in fact see the light before they were blinded?

These and other matters I ponder whilst watching re-runs of Walker Texas Ranger.

Thank you Ted, for adding yet another Subject of Pontificating to help fill my insomniac hours.

As a by the way here are other (non photographic) matters which annoy:

"ATM machine"
“totally destroyed”
“[people] being evacuated”
“verbal” when used to mean spoken word only
“totally unique”
[people] surviving “electrocution”

WW

[William W]

. . . "Like" itself when used as a filler where the could be a pause. e.g. "I saw this, like, awesome show, it was, like, amazing!"

Same ilk - beginning sentences with: "So" and "Yes, No" or "Yeah, but" . . .

Thank you gentlemen, I am now having Daymares which echo my Nightmares.

WW

[William W]

Of course, I am sure my passion for the archaic Grammatical Style of using capitalization of (what I consider) Proper Nouns in sentances, annoys some Pedants.

WW

[MrB]

Photographers writing RAW or jpeg is anathema to me so I've got an inhaler for it.

Philip

[pschlute]

Why do we say "visible light" when "light" by definition ** is visible?

Well if I may borrow your pedant hat for a moment Ted......

Visible Light is a scientific term. It defines the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye. Other parts are radiation such as x-rays and ultraviolet, and indeed radio waves.

[xpatUSA]

Well if I may borrow your pedant hat for a moment Ted......

Visible Light is a scientific term.

If so, Peter, I must express surprise that such a term contains redundancy!

[ped]A couple of definitions (click to see source):

"The definition of light has been changing over the years and light can be defined as a name for a range of electromagnetic radiation that can be detected by the human eye."

"Light is a form of energy that we can see."[/ped]

It defines the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye. Other parts are radiation such as x-rays and ultraviolet, and indeed radio waves.

Ergo, the common definitions of light include mention of visibility -making the word "visible" redundant and that was my only point.

In an apposite vein, is it correct to say "IR light" or "UV light", I wonder ...

[rpcrowe]

One definition of "light" as per the Merriam Webster Dictionary,

electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength that travels in a vacuum with a speed of 299,792,458 meters (about 186,000 miles) per second
specifically : such radiation that is visible to the human eye

I will sometimes use the term "ultra violet light" but never seem to say "infrared light"

[pschlute]

My point was that the term "visible light" is a long standing scientific term. It differentiates light we can see from other forms of "light" we cannot. Gamma radiation; microwave radiation; and infra-red and others are all part of the same electromagnetic spectrum and are not visible to the human eye. It may be less common now days to refer to the latter as "light" than it once was, but scientifically it is still a correct term.

Of course I agree that "light" as commonly perceived means anything we can see, and in that respect the term visible light contains one word too many

[xpatUSA]

One in the eye for me:

"We can conclude that visibility of light outside the well-accepted range of about 380–780 nm depends upon the brightness (radiance) of the source but is limited in childhood to approximately 310 nm at the short wavelength of the visible spectrum to perhaps ~1100 nm in the near-infrared. A true dividing line simply does not exist between ‘visible' and infrared. The visibility of an infrared A (IR-A) wavelength merely depends only on the brightness (radiance) of the source compared with ambient luminance."

From: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4763133/

So, Richard, it would appear that one can say "infrared light" and that "ultra-violet light" is perhaps OK too ...

BUT -not for us old geezers, eh?

[MrB]

Perhaps we should be grateful that the great majority of light is not visible, because thankfully most of it does not enter our eyes.

Philip