![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Incident solar white light traveling through the earth's atmosphere is attenuated by scattering and absorption by the air molecules and airborne particles by a combination of Rayleigh scattering and Mie scattering. [1] At sunset and sunrise, sunlight's path through the atmosphere is much longer than during the daytime, which creates different colors. At sunrise and sunset there is more attenuation and light scattering by air molecules that remove violets, blues and greens, relatively enhancing reds and oranges. Because the shorter wavelength light of violets, blues and greens scatter more strongly by Rayleigh Scattering, violets, blues and greens are removed almost completely from the incident beam, leaving mostly only longer wavelength orange and red hues at sunrise and sunset, which are further scattered by Mie scattering across the horizon to produce intense reds and oranges, when there are soot, dust, or solid or liquid aerosols in the atmosphere. [2] The removal of the shorter wavelengths of light is due to Rayleigh scattering by air molecules and small particles of sizes an order of magnitude smaller that the wavelength of visible light (typically particles and molecules smaller than 50 nm). [3] [4] The sun is actually white when observed without any air between the viewer and the sun, so, sunlight in outer space contains a mixture of violets, blues, greens, yellows, oranges and reds. Due to Rayleigh scattering, the sun appears reddish or yellowish when we look at it from earth, since the longer wavelengths of reds and yellow light are scattered the least, passing through the air to the viewer, while shorter wavelengths like violet, blue, and green light are effectively removed from direct sunlight by air molecules' Rayleigh scattering.
Rayleigh scattering is the elastic scattering of electromagnetic radiation due to the polarizability of the electron cloud in molecules and particles much smaller than the wavelength of visible light. Rayleigh scattering intensity is fairly omnidirectional and has a strong reciprocal 4th-power wavelength dependency and, thus, the shorter wavelengths of violet and blue light are effected much more than the longer wavelengths of yellow to red light. During the day, this scattering results in the increasingly intense blue color of the sky away from the direct line of sight to the Sun, while during sunrise and sunset, the much longer path length through the atmosphere results in the complete removal of violet, blue and green light from the incident rays, leaving weak intensities of orange to red light. [5]
After Rayleigh scattering has removed the violets, blues, and greens, people's viewing of red and orange colors of sunsets and sunrises is then enhanced by the presence of particulate matter, dust, soot, water droplets (like clouds), or other aerosols in the atmosphere, (notably sulfuric acid droplets from volcanic eruptions). Particles much smaller than the wavelength of the incident light efficiently enhance the blue colors for off-axis short path lengths through air (resulting in blue skies, since Rayleigh scattering intensity increases as the sixth power of the particle diameter). Larger particles as aerosols, however, with sizes comparable to and longer than the wavelength of light, scatter by mechanisms treated, for spherical shapes, by the Mie theory. Mie scattering is largely wavelength insensitive. Its spacial distribution is highly preferential in the forward direction of the incident light being scattered, thus having its largest effect when an observer views the light in the direction of the rising or setting Sun, rather than looking in other directions. During the daytime, Mie Scattering generally causes a diffuse white halo around the Sun decreasing the perception of blue color in the direction toward the Sun and it causes daytime clouds to appear white due to white sunlight. At sunset and sunrise, Mie scattering off of particles and aerosols across the horizon, then transmits the red and orange wavelengths that remain after Rayleigh scattering has depleted the blue light. This explains why sunsets without soot, dust, or aerosols are dull and fairly faint red, while sunsets and sunrises are brilliantly intense when there are lots of soot, dust, or other aerosols in the air. [6] [7]
Sunset colors are typically more brilliant than sunrise colors, because the evening air contains generally more particles and aerosols and clouds than morning air. Cloud droplets are much larger than the wavelength of light; so they scatter all colors equally by Mie scattering, which makes them appear white when illuminated by white sunlight during the daytime. The clouds glow orange and red due to Mie scattering during a sunset because they are illuminated with the orange and red light that remains after multiple prior Rayleigh scattering events of the light from the setting sun. </ref> [2] [8] [5] [1]
Ash from volcanic eruptions, trapped within the troposphere, tends to mute sunset and sunrise colors, while volcanic ejecta that is instead lofted into the stratosphere (as thin clouds of tiny sulfuric acid droplets), can yield beautiful post-sunset colors called afterglows and and pre-sunrise glows. A number of eruptions, including those of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 and Krakatoa in 1883, have produced sufficiently high stratospheric sulfuric acid clouds to yield remarkable sunset afterglows (and pre-sunrise glows) around the world. The high altitude clouds serve to reflect strongly-reddened sunlight still striking the stratosphere after sunset, down to the surface.
Sometimes just before sunrise or after sunset a green flash can be seen. [9] - I offer the most recent version, because I do not know how to undo Alvegaspar's continued un-justified changes, and I would like a version saved here for future use - including both useful fotos. The Good Doctor Fry ( talk) 18:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the photo and caption purporting to show a sunset formed by Rayleigh scattering alone (no Mie scattering). The point the editor was trying to make: The sky lights up red only when there are clouds (or other particles) to reflect the reddened sunlight. While true, I (and others who have deleted the photo before) don't think it warrants the space. Spiel496 ( talk) 23:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Sentences about the wavelength-dependence of Rayleigh and Mie scattering I moved earlier in the section so that it gets to the point sooner. Then in this pair of edits I deleted everything that was either redundant or not specifically about sunrises/sunsets. Although I have removed a sizable chunk of prose, I assure you that my intention was to preserve all the important points. If there is now something missing from the explanation of sunset colors, please don't hesitate to call me on it. Also, the references are probably displaced from their content, but that can get fixed later. Spiel496 ( talk) 00:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
---
Here are versions of the diagrams using edits proposed by others above, showing both Rayleigh and Mie Scattering events that give a yellow & red sun, blue sky, and red and orange sunset colors, with the "Smart Draw Trial Edition" removed.
The Good Doctor Fry (
talk) 02:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
.
.
189.148.46.232 (
talk) 03:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
189.148.46.232 (
talk)
03:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm done with the subject. Happy New Year to all. Pocketthis ( talk) 01:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Today, I added some text about the fact that, at sunset, the solar disk is distorted by refraction. I found an image in Commons that shows the effect, and put it in the article alongside my text. In order not to increase the number of images in the article, which some people seem to find excessive, I deleted another one that did not seem to me to contribute anything. I thought this was a reasonable compromise.
But no. Alvesgaspar has seen fit to delete the picture, saying it is of "poor quality". Certainly, it is not very spectacular, but it shows a sufficiently large image of the sun's disk for its non-circularity to be evident. That was the purpose of putting the image in the article, and it served this purpose well. I could not find any other image in Commons that was as good. Without the image, the text still describes the effect, but with reduced clarity.
I think the image should be put back. I'd do it myself, but that kind of tit-for-tat gets silly. Alvesgaspar should do it.
DOwenWilliams ( talk) 03:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Today, Alvesgaspar has re-introduced the image I deleted from the article. It shows sunset near San Francisco, and is certainly pretty (though not as pretty as another image further down), but it adds absolutely nothing to the informative nature of the article. The image I put in, and he deleted and has not restored, clearly showed something of which many readers may not be aware, that the apparent shape of the Sun when it is close to the horizon is not circular. It is "squashed", so it is wider than it is high.
I suppose this raises a basic question about the function of images in Wikipedia articles. Are they intended to inform, illustrating and adding to the text, or are they intended just as pleasant decorations? Both functions are valid, but which should take priority? Clearly, Alvesgaspar and I have different opinions about this.
What do other people think?
DOwenWilliams ( talk) 14:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Pocketthis ( talk) 18:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Pocketthis ( talk) 18:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we should just put in this link to the Commons sunset collection. It has about 500 images of sunsets, I think.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sunset
Yes. I agree that the situation here is "kind of odd". A picture is said to be worth a thousand words, and yet those "in charge" here seem to want no pictures, only words.
Oh well... In the grand scheme of things, it's not important. Most academics are contemptuous of Wikipedia, anyway.
DOwenWilliams ( talk) 19:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I just put that link into the article. Let's see what happens to it! DOwenWilliams ( talk) 19:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The article contains the common misconception that public schools still teach to this day, that Copernicus discovered the earth revolves around the sun. The heliocentricism article contains the citations to show that this is false. Also, you don't use the relative pronoun "who" when referring to anyone but a person. It should be "cultures, which did not understand" in that same section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.244.16 ( talk) 20:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Considering that this page is within the scope of the 'Time project', the definition of sunset time should be more precise.
A definition in wide use is: the time, when the upper limb of the apparent image of the sun passes the astronomical horizon.
Since you want to calculate the times these definitions have to be unambigious. No problem with the astronomical horizon, but where the apparent image of the sun is located, is based on the refraction of a standard atmosphere. A standard value for the refraction angle is 0°34′.
The apparent time of sunset may differ widely from this. Some of the reasons (mainly the viewers elevation) are explained here:
http://www.ikth.dk/almanak/kiming_refraktion/kim_refr.php
The actual refraction depends on location, humidity, pressure and temperature.
Valmuevej ( talk) 16:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The caption on the first photo appears to be incorrect, due to the effect described in the first para of the article. Isn't the position shown actually after astronomical sunset, and about a minute before apparent astronomical sunset? SeanLegassick ( talk) 15:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The statement "Sunsets occur precisely due west on the equinoxes for all viewers on Earth" is not quite accurate. Because an equinox is an instant in time, the sunset will only be precisely due west at the one longitude on earth each year where the instant of sunset happens to coincide with the instant of the equinox. At other locations, the sunset will occur very close to due west on the date of the equinox, but not precisely. Although the tiny difference is unlikely to have practical consequences, the sentence has been reworded in the interest of theoretical accuracy. Piperh ( talk) 04:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
There should be a section on the meaning and symbolism of sunrise and sunset in various cultures. For instance, various graves and barrows in Britain and Ireland are aligned with the sunrise (more so than sunset- which is also interesting). I'm also sure that in various mythologies there are gods linked with these events. And finally, we call Japan - 'land of the rising sun', and there's that song House of the rising sun. Worth mentioning? Malick78 ( talk) 10:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I would like to suggest this photo for filling the free space under photo#1. It's pretty Spot on, and the colors will enhance the boring red page. Thanks, Pocketthis ( talk) 18:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sunset 2007-1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 13, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-04-13. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The 1st para says sunset occurs when the azimuth is greater than 180 degrees. Following the link to Azimuth (see /info/en/?search=Azimuth), it seems like an azimuth of 180 degrees is South and an azimuth more than 180 degrees means South through West to North.
Seems more like Sunset is when the Altitude is less than zero instead (again, going by the diagram in the Azimuth page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibls ( talk • contribs) 09:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
All the pictures left in the article look exactly the same. Same yellow-orange same dark hour, same everything. Could be the same picture only different sizes. Sunset doesn't look like this all the time. Hafspajen ( talk) 22:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
User Pyrometer exclude link to http://sunsetsunrisetime.com on 23:52, 19 January 2014 with comment "Bad site: incorrect calculations"
I compare results of 4 sites:
for Tbilisi, Georgia, lat 41.694110 lon 44.833680, timezone GMT+5, 23.01.2014
site | sunset | sunrise | day length |
---|---|---|---|
astroid.eu | 19:05 | 09:22 | 9:43 |
spectralcalc.com | 19:04:26 | 9:20:51 | - |
sunrisehour.com | 19:04 | 9:21 | 9:43 |
sunsetsunrisetime.com | 19:05:02 | 09:22:07 | 09:42:53 |
All resulsts are little different. It is a computational error. I think it is not correct to exclude one of this sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.151.111.197 ( talk) 13:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Alvesgaspar, you simply won't let anyone edit this article, right? the only pictures in this article are chosen by...well ... Alvesgaspar!
In spite of a real big amout of editors who would like to add pictures to this article. Like foe example Pocketthis who would like to suggest this photo (File:Mustard Blue Sunset.jpg ) the colors will enhance the boring red page.
SajjadF trying to add a picture, and it is constantly removed [18] and [19]. And myself, also stating that All the pictures left in the article look exactly the same. Same yellow-orange same dark hour, same everything. Could be the same picture only different sizes. Sunset doesn't look like this all the time. No answer on the comment on the Talk:Sunset, just more pictures removed. By Alvesgaspar.
DOwenWilliams said :Today, I added some text about the fact that, at sunset, the solar disk is distorted by refraction. But no. Alvesgaspar has seen fit to delete the picture, saying it is of "poor quality". DOwenWilliams (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC) and other problems. [20]
Editor Jsnaturephotos add picture, [21], removed by Alvesgaspar - [22]
Editor Ip ads [23] but is removed by Alvesgaspar - [24].
Arctic Kangaroo adds picture [25], but it is removed by Alvesgaspar [26].
Editor Jmencisom add picture, [27], but it is removed by Alvesgaspar [28]
Others may have the same problem, like Pocketthis : Here is an example of some of the colors that show up at Sunset with the right conditions. I'm not suggesting we use these photos or any of my sunset photos, but let's put some color on that page. Pocketthis (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Many editors suggested that the article looks sordid and unpleasant with only one kind of orange - black pictures.
Editor Elph adds a picture [29] and Alvesgaspar removes it [30] with the comment : no need for pictures in every part of the world.
Editor Vhorvat adds a picture [31] and Alvesgaspar removes it Alvesgaspar also removes sourced material. [32]
Added by Fir0002 [33] [34] Alvesgaspar removes it [35]
I do not agree that the pictures removed are bad or poor quality. Neither do others, like
[36] Pocketthis.
All this points to a non consensus solution using pictures in this article, using only the pictures chosen by Alvesgaspar.
Hafspajen ( talk) 11:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
And don't say regular "users". It is "editors". The people who have contributed to this article have good experience in editing articles, They are not noobs. Calling them users is inappropriate. Having the same photos always makes no point. Choose some new photos to make the page more interesting. Photos from different places would increase diversity showing that wikipedia is not biased. And, Yes, some photos look similar because generally the colors during sunset are the same !! A discussion should be made again inorder to pick the best photos. SajjadF ( talk) 20:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); |volume=
has extra text (
help) Cite error: The named reference "guenther" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Over the past 3 weeks there has been discussion between other editors and myself on our talk pages, about adding a small gallery. I finally got around to making one today. Anyone who doesn't like my choices, and wants to make an exchange, please post your photo for consensus approval first.-Thanks- Pocketthis ( talk) 18:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
As a photographer, I have been waiting almost a decade to see the sun setting in just the right atmosphere to allow itself to be crisp and photographed without any filter on my lens. It finally happened last night, June 06, 2015. I took over 50 shots as the sun sunk over the horizon. I then took a "midway" shot and made it the main photo of a collage of photos within the one frame showing the full cycle of the Sunset. I worked on it for many hours to get it to where I was satisfied. This will be a very educational photo, and I felt it belonged where I had my previous desert sunset shot. If anyone has a different opinion, or wants to argue my edit, please feel free to do it here. Thanks- Pocketthis ( talk) 18:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
This bit from the intro seems to answer a question that hasn't been asked: "It takes over 8 minutes for the light from the Sun to reach the Earth. During that time, the Sun's position in the sky changes by approximately 2 degrees but this is due to Earth's rotation and surprisingly the delay in no way results in the Sun being below the horizon at sunset."
I can't imagine what this possibly contributes to the understanding of a sunset. Does the article on Sirius require a paragraph explaining why its motion across the sky isn't delayed by 8 years? I don't think so.
Furthermore, the Intro is supposed to summarize the main points of the article. This 8-minute thing is not such a point. Spiel496 ( talk) 00:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
nor disagree with the addition of this info, and that it was for the science editors to decide". My only concern was to correct the poor grammar that it arrived with. You are the science editor. That's that. Thanks for coming here first, but you didn't need to. I don't think anyone was crazy about that info being added, but since the facts appeared correct, it lasted until you reviewed it.-thanks- Pocketthis ( talk) 00:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Incident solar white light traveling through the earth's atmosphere is attenuated by scattering and absorption by the air molecules and airborne particles by a combination of Rayleigh scattering and Mie scattering. [1] At sunset and sunrise, sunlight's path through the atmosphere is much longer than during the daytime, which creates different colors. At sunrise and sunset there is more attenuation and light scattering by air molecules that remove violets, blues and greens, relatively enhancing reds and oranges. Because the shorter wavelength light of violets, blues and greens scatter more strongly by Rayleigh Scattering, violets, blues and greens are removed almost completely from the incident beam, leaving mostly only longer wavelength orange and red hues at sunrise and sunset, which are further scattered by Mie scattering across the horizon to produce intense reds and oranges, when there are soot, dust, or solid or liquid aerosols in the atmosphere. [2] The removal of the shorter wavelengths of light is due to Rayleigh scattering by air molecules and small particles of sizes an order of magnitude smaller that the wavelength of visible light (typically particles and molecules smaller than 50 nm). [3] [4] The sun is actually white when observed without any air between the viewer and the sun, so, sunlight in outer space contains a mixture of violets, blues, greens, yellows, oranges and reds. Due to Rayleigh scattering, the sun appears reddish or yellowish when we look at it from earth, since the longer wavelengths of reds and yellow light are scattered the least, passing through the air to the viewer, while shorter wavelengths like violet, blue, and green light are effectively removed from direct sunlight by air molecules' Rayleigh scattering.
Rayleigh scattering is the elastic scattering of electromagnetic radiation due to the polarizability of the electron cloud in molecules and particles much smaller than the wavelength of visible light. Rayleigh scattering intensity is fairly omnidirectional and has a strong reciprocal 4th-power wavelength dependency and, thus, the shorter wavelengths of violet and blue light are effected much more than the longer wavelengths of yellow to red light. During the day, this scattering results in the increasingly intense blue color of the sky away from the direct line of sight to the Sun, while during sunrise and sunset, the much longer path length through the atmosphere results in the complete removal of violet, blue and green light from the incident rays, leaving weak intensities of orange to red light. [5]
After Rayleigh scattering has removed the violets, blues, and greens, people's viewing of red and orange colors of sunsets and sunrises is then enhanced by the presence of particulate matter, dust, soot, water droplets (like clouds), or other aerosols in the atmosphere, (notably sulfuric acid droplets from volcanic eruptions). Particles much smaller than the wavelength of the incident light efficiently enhance the blue colors for off-axis short path lengths through air (resulting in blue skies, since Rayleigh scattering intensity increases as the sixth power of the particle diameter). Larger particles as aerosols, however, with sizes comparable to and longer than the wavelength of light, scatter by mechanisms treated, for spherical shapes, by the Mie theory. Mie scattering is largely wavelength insensitive. Its spacial distribution is highly preferential in the forward direction of the incident light being scattered, thus having its largest effect when an observer views the light in the direction of the rising or setting Sun, rather than looking in other directions. During the daytime, Mie Scattering generally causes a diffuse white halo around the Sun decreasing the perception of blue color in the direction toward the Sun and it causes daytime clouds to appear white due to white sunlight. At sunset and sunrise, Mie scattering off of particles and aerosols across the horizon, then transmits the red and orange wavelengths that remain after Rayleigh scattering has depleted the blue light. This explains why sunsets without soot, dust, or aerosols are dull and fairly faint red, while sunsets and sunrises are brilliantly intense when there are lots of soot, dust, or other aerosols in the air. [6] [7]
Sunset colors are typically more brilliant than sunrise colors, because the evening air contains generally more particles and aerosols and clouds than morning air. Cloud droplets are much larger than the wavelength of light; so they scatter all colors equally by Mie scattering, which makes them appear white when illuminated by white sunlight during the daytime. The clouds glow orange and red due to Mie scattering during a sunset because they are illuminated with the orange and red light that remains after multiple prior Rayleigh scattering events of the light from the setting sun. </ref> [2] [8] [5] [1]
Ash from volcanic eruptions, trapped within the troposphere, tends to mute sunset and sunrise colors, while volcanic ejecta that is instead lofted into the stratosphere (as thin clouds of tiny sulfuric acid droplets), can yield beautiful post-sunset colors called afterglows and and pre-sunrise glows. A number of eruptions, including those of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 and Krakatoa in 1883, have produced sufficiently high stratospheric sulfuric acid clouds to yield remarkable sunset afterglows (and pre-sunrise glows) around the world. The high altitude clouds serve to reflect strongly-reddened sunlight still striking the stratosphere after sunset, down to the surface.
Sometimes just before sunrise or after sunset a green flash can be seen. [9] - I offer the most recent version, because I do not know how to undo Alvegaspar's continued un-justified changes, and I would like a version saved here for future use - including both useful fotos. The Good Doctor Fry ( talk) 18:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the photo and caption purporting to show a sunset formed by Rayleigh scattering alone (no Mie scattering). The point the editor was trying to make: The sky lights up red only when there are clouds (or other particles) to reflect the reddened sunlight. While true, I (and others who have deleted the photo before) don't think it warrants the space. Spiel496 ( talk) 23:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Sentences about the wavelength-dependence of Rayleigh and Mie scattering I moved earlier in the section so that it gets to the point sooner. Then in this pair of edits I deleted everything that was either redundant or not specifically about sunrises/sunsets. Although I have removed a sizable chunk of prose, I assure you that my intention was to preserve all the important points. If there is now something missing from the explanation of sunset colors, please don't hesitate to call me on it. Also, the references are probably displaced from their content, but that can get fixed later. Spiel496 ( talk) 00:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
---
Here are versions of the diagrams using edits proposed by others above, showing both Rayleigh and Mie Scattering events that give a yellow & red sun, blue sky, and red and orange sunset colors, with the "Smart Draw Trial Edition" removed.
The Good Doctor Fry (
talk) 02:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
.
.
189.148.46.232 (
talk) 03:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
189.148.46.232 (
talk)
03:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm done with the subject. Happy New Year to all. Pocketthis ( talk) 01:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Today, I added some text about the fact that, at sunset, the solar disk is distorted by refraction. I found an image in Commons that shows the effect, and put it in the article alongside my text. In order not to increase the number of images in the article, which some people seem to find excessive, I deleted another one that did not seem to me to contribute anything. I thought this was a reasonable compromise.
But no. Alvesgaspar has seen fit to delete the picture, saying it is of "poor quality". Certainly, it is not very spectacular, but it shows a sufficiently large image of the sun's disk for its non-circularity to be evident. That was the purpose of putting the image in the article, and it served this purpose well. I could not find any other image in Commons that was as good. Without the image, the text still describes the effect, but with reduced clarity.
I think the image should be put back. I'd do it myself, but that kind of tit-for-tat gets silly. Alvesgaspar should do it.
DOwenWilliams ( talk) 03:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Today, Alvesgaspar has re-introduced the image I deleted from the article. It shows sunset near San Francisco, and is certainly pretty (though not as pretty as another image further down), but it adds absolutely nothing to the informative nature of the article. The image I put in, and he deleted and has not restored, clearly showed something of which many readers may not be aware, that the apparent shape of the Sun when it is close to the horizon is not circular. It is "squashed", so it is wider than it is high.
I suppose this raises a basic question about the function of images in Wikipedia articles. Are they intended to inform, illustrating and adding to the text, or are they intended just as pleasant decorations? Both functions are valid, but which should take priority? Clearly, Alvesgaspar and I have different opinions about this.
What do other people think?
DOwenWilliams ( talk) 14:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Pocketthis ( talk) 18:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Pocketthis ( talk) 18:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we should just put in this link to the Commons sunset collection. It has about 500 images of sunsets, I think.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sunset
Yes. I agree that the situation here is "kind of odd". A picture is said to be worth a thousand words, and yet those "in charge" here seem to want no pictures, only words.
Oh well... In the grand scheme of things, it's not important. Most academics are contemptuous of Wikipedia, anyway.
DOwenWilliams ( talk) 19:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I just put that link into the article. Let's see what happens to it! DOwenWilliams ( talk) 19:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The article contains the common misconception that public schools still teach to this day, that Copernicus discovered the earth revolves around the sun. The heliocentricism article contains the citations to show that this is false. Also, you don't use the relative pronoun "who" when referring to anyone but a person. It should be "cultures, which did not understand" in that same section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.244.16 ( talk) 20:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Considering that this page is within the scope of the 'Time project', the definition of sunset time should be more precise.
A definition in wide use is: the time, when the upper limb of the apparent image of the sun passes the astronomical horizon.
Since you want to calculate the times these definitions have to be unambigious. No problem with the astronomical horizon, but where the apparent image of the sun is located, is based on the refraction of a standard atmosphere. A standard value for the refraction angle is 0°34′.
The apparent time of sunset may differ widely from this. Some of the reasons (mainly the viewers elevation) are explained here:
http://www.ikth.dk/almanak/kiming_refraktion/kim_refr.php
The actual refraction depends on location, humidity, pressure and temperature.
Valmuevej ( talk) 16:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The caption on the first photo appears to be incorrect, due to the effect described in the first para of the article. Isn't the position shown actually after astronomical sunset, and about a minute before apparent astronomical sunset? SeanLegassick ( talk) 15:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The statement "Sunsets occur precisely due west on the equinoxes for all viewers on Earth" is not quite accurate. Because an equinox is an instant in time, the sunset will only be precisely due west at the one longitude on earth each year where the instant of sunset happens to coincide with the instant of the equinox. At other locations, the sunset will occur very close to due west on the date of the equinox, but not precisely. Although the tiny difference is unlikely to have practical consequences, the sentence has been reworded in the interest of theoretical accuracy. Piperh ( talk) 04:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
There should be a section on the meaning and symbolism of sunrise and sunset in various cultures. For instance, various graves and barrows in Britain and Ireland are aligned with the sunrise (more so than sunset- which is also interesting). I'm also sure that in various mythologies there are gods linked with these events. And finally, we call Japan - 'land of the rising sun', and there's that song House of the rising sun. Worth mentioning? Malick78 ( talk) 10:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I would like to suggest this photo for filling the free space under photo#1. It's pretty Spot on, and the colors will enhance the boring red page. Thanks, Pocketthis ( talk) 18:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sunset 2007-1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 13, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-04-13. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The 1st para says sunset occurs when the azimuth is greater than 180 degrees. Following the link to Azimuth (see /info/en/?search=Azimuth), it seems like an azimuth of 180 degrees is South and an azimuth more than 180 degrees means South through West to North.
Seems more like Sunset is when the Altitude is less than zero instead (again, going by the diagram in the Azimuth page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibls ( talk • contribs) 09:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
All the pictures left in the article look exactly the same. Same yellow-orange same dark hour, same everything. Could be the same picture only different sizes. Sunset doesn't look like this all the time. Hafspajen ( talk) 22:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
User Pyrometer exclude link to http://sunsetsunrisetime.com on 23:52, 19 January 2014 with comment "Bad site: incorrect calculations"
I compare results of 4 sites:
for Tbilisi, Georgia, lat 41.694110 lon 44.833680, timezone GMT+5, 23.01.2014
site | sunset | sunrise | day length |
---|---|---|---|
astroid.eu | 19:05 | 09:22 | 9:43 |
spectralcalc.com | 19:04:26 | 9:20:51 | - |
sunrisehour.com | 19:04 | 9:21 | 9:43 |
sunsetsunrisetime.com | 19:05:02 | 09:22:07 | 09:42:53 |
All resulsts are little different. It is a computational error. I think it is not correct to exclude one of this sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.151.111.197 ( talk) 13:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Alvesgaspar, you simply won't let anyone edit this article, right? the only pictures in this article are chosen by...well ... Alvesgaspar!
In spite of a real big amout of editors who would like to add pictures to this article. Like foe example Pocketthis who would like to suggest this photo (File:Mustard Blue Sunset.jpg ) the colors will enhance the boring red page.
SajjadF trying to add a picture, and it is constantly removed [18] and [19]. And myself, also stating that All the pictures left in the article look exactly the same. Same yellow-orange same dark hour, same everything. Could be the same picture only different sizes. Sunset doesn't look like this all the time. No answer on the comment on the Talk:Sunset, just more pictures removed. By Alvesgaspar.
DOwenWilliams said :Today, I added some text about the fact that, at sunset, the solar disk is distorted by refraction. But no. Alvesgaspar has seen fit to delete the picture, saying it is of "poor quality". DOwenWilliams (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC) and other problems. [20]
Editor Jsnaturephotos add picture, [21], removed by Alvesgaspar - [22]
Editor Ip ads [23] but is removed by Alvesgaspar - [24].
Arctic Kangaroo adds picture [25], but it is removed by Alvesgaspar [26].
Editor Jmencisom add picture, [27], but it is removed by Alvesgaspar [28]
Others may have the same problem, like Pocketthis : Here is an example of some of the colors that show up at Sunset with the right conditions. I'm not suggesting we use these photos or any of my sunset photos, but let's put some color on that page. Pocketthis (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Many editors suggested that the article looks sordid and unpleasant with only one kind of orange - black pictures.
Editor Elph adds a picture [29] and Alvesgaspar removes it [30] with the comment : no need for pictures in every part of the world.
Editor Vhorvat adds a picture [31] and Alvesgaspar removes it Alvesgaspar also removes sourced material. [32]
Added by Fir0002 [33] [34] Alvesgaspar removes it [35]
I do not agree that the pictures removed are bad or poor quality. Neither do others, like
[36] Pocketthis.
All this points to a non consensus solution using pictures in this article, using only the pictures chosen by Alvesgaspar.
Hafspajen ( talk) 11:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
And don't say regular "users". It is "editors". The people who have contributed to this article have good experience in editing articles, They are not noobs. Calling them users is inappropriate. Having the same photos always makes no point. Choose some new photos to make the page more interesting. Photos from different places would increase diversity showing that wikipedia is not biased. And, Yes, some photos look similar because generally the colors during sunset are the same !! A discussion should be made again inorder to pick the best photos. SajjadF ( talk) 20:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); |volume=
has extra text (
help) Cite error: The named reference "guenther" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Over the past 3 weeks there has been discussion between other editors and myself on our talk pages, about adding a small gallery. I finally got around to making one today. Anyone who doesn't like my choices, and wants to make an exchange, please post your photo for consensus approval first.-Thanks- Pocketthis ( talk) 18:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
As a photographer, I have been waiting almost a decade to see the sun setting in just the right atmosphere to allow itself to be crisp and photographed without any filter on my lens. It finally happened last night, June 06, 2015. I took over 50 shots as the sun sunk over the horizon. I then took a "midway" shot and made it the main photo of a collage of photos within the one frame showing the full cycle of the Sunset. I worked on it for many hours to get it to where I was satisfied. This will be a very educational photo, and I felt it belonged where I had my previous desert sunset shot. If anyone has a different opinion, or wants to argue my edit, please feel free to do it here. Thanks- Pocketthis ( talk) 18:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
This bit from the intro seems to answer a question that hasn't been asked: "It takes over 8 minutes for the light from the Sun to reach the Earth. During that time, the Sun's position in the sky changes by approximately 2 degrees but this is due to Earth's rotation and surprisingly the delay in no way results in the Sun being below the horizon at sunset."
I can't imagine what this possibly contributes to the understanding of a sunset. Does the article on Sirius require a paragraph explaining why its motion across the sky isn't delayed by 8 years? I don't think so.
Furthermore, the Intro is supposed to summarize the main points of the article. This 8-minute thing is not such a point. Spiel496 ( talk) 00:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
nor disagree with the addition of this info, and that it was for the science editors to decide". My only concern was to correct the poor grammar that it arrived with. You are the science editor. That's that. Thanks for coming here first, but you didn't need to. I don't think anyone was crazy about that info being added, but since the facts appeared correct, it lasted until you reviewed it.-thanks- Pocketthis ( talk) 00:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)