Then you have flip-flopped from your original question support text. You concentrated only on infrared from the Sun, and ignored the Sun's blackbody spectrum (some UV to lots of visible, with some infrared.).
"Maybe i was being too picky with the specifics about a broad statement to present the concept, but from the answers, it seems I am correct."
No, you are correct in fact, and wrong in essence. Some people are going to rub you the wrong way. You need to find a happy place where you can hear what they have to say, and review what they said in the cold light of reason. There are currently 7 billion different ways to understand Nature, and you cannot afford to ignore one simply because he / she asks you to redefine what you already know.
-
Yes, infra red photons and other photons would not need any Luminiferous Eether:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferou...
... ever since the negative results in The Michelson–Morley Experiment which confirmed The Special Theory of Relativity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E...
You must understand that the legislators have determined that a High School Teacher needs only six science credits to crack open a book, the rest of the other 4 years of credit are filled with unproven mumbo jumbo psychology, a host of health related issues. So a College Science Professor is not qualified under the government rules to teach your kids but farmer bill with a lousy six science credits between his legs is; Oh Wow, talk about taking the voters for a ride down robbery lane.
A word to the wise: SUE THEM !!!
-
Your teacher is correct, at least as far as what you said he said. Your rebuttal is partly correct but as argument to refute the assertions of your teacher, is really just wrong.
The energy of the sun reaches earth via electromagnetic radiation - the full spectrum, not just infrared, which is just one form. My guess is that your teacher was 'disagreeing' with you about infrared being the only source of 'heat', when it really is all of the radiation.