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.
Is there a difference between sunrise and dawn? If so, this should be explained. - Montréalais—Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 2 March 2003 (UTC)
Is there a westward revolution of the moon around the Earth, the same as there is an apparent revolution of the sun around the earth?? In other words, is it correct to think that the Moon rises on the East and sets on the West, the same as the Sun does?
I think so. --Spoon! 09:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep, it sure appears that way to millions of us here on Planet Earth, past and present. If it interests you, look up information on the seemingly-peculiar orientation of ancient Native buildings in the Chaco Canyon area. This group seems to have understood the cyclical nature of the position of the moon's rising and setting as well as any of the other ancients. My memory is aging, but I believe that there is roughly an 18-19 year cycle in the relative positions of moon-rise on the eastern horizon and and moon-set on the western horizon, and the folks that laid out many building positions in the cities of Chaco Canyon oriented their East-West walls to point directly to the most extreme northern and southern moon-rise points on the Eastern Horizon. (Hint, don't feel bad, since the period of the cycle is relatively long at 19 years, and most of us aren't aware of such things till age 15-20 - which means that we only get to witness the extremes 3 or 4 times in a lifetime.) "yep, Ah r'member back in '91 when the moon rose way in thuh south." not really...
201.160.119.29 20:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry201.160.119.29 20:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Link suggestion
I would like to suggest the following link to a sunrise / -set calendar with interactive location finder. As I am the site admin, I find it correct, not to set the link by myself. But maybe someone find it worthy: sun.exnatura.org --XN 13:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I think, I will give it a try since it's not commercial and GFDL'ed. --XN 20:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is Date of Most Extreme Sunrise / Sunset Not Solstice?
The page mentions that the date of the most extreme sunrise or sunset in the year does not fall on a solstice. For example, in the Northern hemisphere sun rises at its latest time in early January, NOT on December 21st. Why is this?
The phenomena the dates of latest sunrise and earliest sunsets differing from the solstices is due to several factors. The major influences are your latitude (how far North or South of the equator you live), the tilt of the earth's axis, and the non-circular orbit (elliptical) of the earth around the sun.
Since the earth is tilted roughly 23 degres relative to the plane of earth's orbit around the sun, your latitude determines when the sun rises and sets. The further you are from the equator, the more pronounced the effect. So, the greatest effects of latitude are experienced at or around the Solstices and the effects are largest at the greatest latitudes: e.g. the winter days are shortest at the North Pole and longest at the South Pole - and the effect is reversed in the summertime (from a North American or European perspective, that is - an Aussie or Kiwi may beg to differ).
The elliptical orbit of the earth around the sun reaches it maxima at the solstices. Since the earth rotates counter clock-wise, (anti-clockwise, when viewed from above the North Pole), and the orbit of the earth around the sun is also anti-clockwise (counter-clockwise), (when viewed from above the North Pole) the latest sunrise (for the Northern Hemisphere) appears after the earth has passed the point of Winter Solstice (early January in the Norther Latitudes): from the perspective of the Sun, the longest path to the earth at dawn, (the leading edge of illumination), is when the earth's position is to left of the Winter Solstice maxima, and that outside radius of the earth's roatitonal path is furthest from the sun. The same effect occurs for the earliest sunset, as the "last" rays of the sun reach the earth, the longest path occurs when the earth is to the right of the Winter Solstice, (before the Winter Solstice occurs), giving the longest path between the Sun and the point(s) of sunset(s), where the outside radius of the earth's orbit is furthest from the sun.
Reverse the phenomena for Summer Solstice or for observers in the Southern Hemisphere.
The last factor, since momentum must be conserved, the earth's radial velocity increases slightly as it passes through the ends of the ellipse - a ball travels faster as it goes through the tight curves of a closed track than it does through the straighter sections.
One other inter-related perspective: Why is winter colder than summer, especially at the higher latitudes? At mid-day, the northern hemisphere is tilted most directly towards the sun during the summer - and since the energy of radiation decreases as the reciprocal (in direct proportion to) of the distance squared: e is proportional to 1/[(distance between radiater and observer)x(distance between radiater and observer)], even small changes in distance turn into larger changes - or if you move twice (2x) as far away from the sun, the light energy you receive drops by 4 fold (4x). So, that 23 degree tilt of the earth's axis has a significant effect on temperature changes between seasons and on the when the earliest/latest sunrises and sunsets occur.
Thanks for that. There's some things not quite right: "the earliest sunrise (for the Northern Hemisphere) appears before the earth has reached the point of Winter Solstice (early December in the Norther Latitudes)".
The earliest sunrise occurs near the SUMMER solstice, not the winter solstice. It's the earliest SUNSET that occurs in early December in Northern latitudes. Similarly "the same effect occurs for sunset ... (after the Winter Solstice occurs)" - it's SUNRISE that reaches it's most extreme (latest) time AFTER the winter solstice.
There is some information that explains the phenomenon of extreme sunrise / sunset and solstice covered in the Wikipedia article "Equation of Time". However, a lucid explanation for the layman is still hard to come by (I know it's crazy talk, but what about one of you guys who understands it putting up some diagrams?)
Ozonevibe 20:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction, you are correct, I clumsily described it for the earliest sunrise = inadertantly describing it for the Summer Solstice. Please see my revised answer above - I've corrected (reversed) my terminology to appropriately describe the main reason for latest sunrise and earliest sunsets. e.g. the physical positions of the earth relative to the sun and the Winter Solstice (for the Northern Hemishphere) cause the latest sunrise to occur when the your latitude has the longest path between the sun and leading edge of illumination = sunrise, and this occurs after the earth has passed the Winter Solstice. oooops! Thanks for your patience.
201.160.119.29 18:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry201.160.119.29 18:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an astronomer, but isn't the earliest sunrise / latest sunset problem explained simply by our definition of mid-day? If we use the mid-point between sunrise and sunset as mid-day, which I believe is what astronomers call using the "true sun", then the latest sunrise occurs on the shortest day. Because we set our clocks using the "mean sun" - which smooths out the variation in speed of the earth's elliptical passage around the sun - we rarely get the middle of the daylight hours at exactly 12:00, and this means the latest sunrise / earliest sunset appear to occur on the wrong day.Ropemaker (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Ropemaker: (No edits needed) Interesting point, Ropemaker. The use of the middle of the day for determining time worked well for nearly 6,000 years of civilization. It also fit a Flat Earth model well. If you believe in a curved earth, then mid-day occurs at different times for each longitude. If you believe in a Flat Earth, then mid day occurs at the same time everywhere and time zones become unnecessary. (Polynesians living on the international dateline would agree with you!)
Specifically, the system you proposed worked ok until the 19'th century and the advent of rail travel. When the Brits introduced steam powered rail travel across England, they found that the using the sun for determining time included using/blending the different times from different parts of the country. This resulted in really screwed-up scheduling of trains. When you don't have a single time standard, then you wind up with two trains on the same track and create horrific collisions.
So, the Brits chose to use the mid-day in Greenwich, England as the standard for the entire British Empire: hence GMT Greenwich Mean Time.
GMT has since been replaced by UMT (Universal Mean Time) whose world-wide standard signal is broadcast from my hometown, Fort Collins, Colorado.
So, if we returned to Pre-Industrial Revolution existences, and we shifted our understandings of the cosmos back to a 2 dimensional earth, we could use the system you proposed. Maybe you could form a group that wants to use mid-day, you could join forces with the Flat Earth Society and many Wiccans, and have some nice parties: a few beers and a lot of laughs (by returning to a happier, less-stressful mode of living). (ps I'm not mocking you... we don't wear watches here in the Yucatan for good reason...The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry
Look at the analemma article. This topic of the dates of earliest/latest sunrise/sunset is simply explained there. DOwenWilliams (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Distinguishing Sunrise - Sunset
Is there a way to distinguish sunrise from sunset in pictures for instance? Is there something that can indicate whether a picture is one of the other? I came to Wikipedia looking for this but didn't really see it as part of this article. --Renrenren 16:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, you can see the sunrise while looking east and you can see the sunset while looking west. Thug outlaw69 16:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
There's a smart one in every bunch. --Renrenren 18:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
While Thug's answer might seem flippant at first, (s)he actually fingered the truth. Unfortunately, for existing photos where there is no context to prove which way the view is oriented, it might not be possible to "prove" they are correctly labeled. One solution would be to photgraph the sunrise or sunset near a coastline with the ocean in the background, and with a famous landmark visible to the left or right in the foreground. The landmark would provide a verifiable reference, and the ocean would give the cleanest possible horizon for the sun. (Providing the latitude and longitude of both the landmark and the spot where the camera was placed would facilitate verification.)
Of course this means the following:
new photographs would need to be obtained to add to the Wikipedia
Sunrise would have to be photographed on an east coast of whatever country
Sunset would have to be photographed on a west coast of whatever country
This solution would also apply to movies of sunrise or sunset, to preclude someone claiming the movie is being run backwards.
Sunrise and sunset photos from a variety of countries might make for a very interesting gallery.
Hi Guys. Some time ago I wrote a Java 3D Earth to provide a day/night view of the Earth, calculate sunrise/sunset and first-light/last-light times at the cursor location. Users can adjust the time to see the view of the Earth at that time. It clearly shows current areas of the Earth in daylight as lighted, between sunset and last-light as shaded, then after last-light as dark (using night image of the Earth). I think it helps provide a clear, interactive view of the Earth in relation to the Sun. It is free for people to use.
It is a 3D program and consequently requires a 3D graphics card and a real language. I used Java 5 to write it since Java runs on most platforms. It also runs in a web page as an unsigned applet (it's even a gadget on iGoogle) or on your desktop. I don't know if this is considered useful enough to Wikipedia readers to warrant a link. I will let someone else evaluate and make that decision. You are free to link to the site if you decide it is worthy.
I think that the bottom two images of sunrises in New York State are a bit redundant. Perhaps we could replace one them with a sunrise outside of the U.S.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.41.82 (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Colors and Mie scattering
As in sunset, I've removed the language about Mie scattering from the explanation of sunrise color, and replaced it with the conventional explanation surrounding Rayleigh scattering. The Mie scattering material here and in sunset was the sole work of Dr. Steven Fry in October 2006, and it looks like it was just a misunderstanding. Spiel496 (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No misunderstandings nor confusion on my part. The previous statements of this article ascribing the reds and oranges of sunset and sunrise to Rayleigh Scattering are simply not accurate, and not even in accordance with the associated Wiki pages on Rayleigh Scattering, Mie Scattering, and light/electromagnetic energy scattering. I have read the non-Wiki Rayleigh Scattering references used in the previous incorrect edits/text, and it seems to me that the previous editor/author did not understand the physics and mathematics involved, as they mis-applied the information from those sites, by taking diagrams and formulae that are designed for molecular scattering during the daytime (molecules are NOT soot or dust or aerosols). They further compounded their errors by mis-applying said daytime diagrams and formulae and descriptions to the special case of sunrise/sunset conditions with both low-altitude dust & soot particles and solid & liquid aerosols present in the longer light path through the lower earth atmosphere of sunlight grazing the earth at sunrise/sunset. The sunrise/sunset low altitude light path through lots of dusty, sooty air near the earth is the main cause of the reds and oranges.
The Wiki pages on Rayleigh Scattering, Mie Scattering and Mie Theory, and scattering are accurate. Wiki source - Rayleigh Scattering page: "Scattering from larger spherical particles is explained by the Mie theory..." The previous author's supposed Rayleigh sources for this information do not address light scattering from soot and dust and other solid aerosols nor sulfuric acid droplets and other atmospheric liquid aerosols.
Wiki Refs continued: "In contrast to Rayleigh scattering, the Mie solution to the scattering problem is valid for all possible ratios of diameter to wavelength, although the technique results in numerical summation of infinite sums." Another pertinent Wiki Reference: "Rayleigh scattering (named after Lord Rayleigh) is the elastic scattering of light or other electromagnetic radiation by particles much smaller than the wavelength of the light."
This discussion of the sources of sunrise and sunset colors is continued, with references, in the Discussion section of sunsetThe Good Doctor Fry (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
For Lord Rayleigh's equation to apply, the scattering particle MUST be roughly 10X smaller than the wavelength of light. This restriction rules out the previous color argument for Rayleigh Scattering. The dust and soot particles that cause the nice red and orange colors at sunrise and sunset are much larger (1 - 100 micrometers) than the short wavelengths of violet, blue, orange and red light (400-700 nanometers) (These particles are 10X - 100X larger).
Since a typical dust or soot particle that scatters red is roughly 10 times LARGER than the wavelength of Red or Orange or Blue light (violating the 10X smaller relationship required by Rayleighs theory), Mie's equation is the correct application, and I was not previously confused. If you read the current Wiki Rayleigh Scattering, Mie Scattering and Scattering articles, they all correctly concur that light scattering by large particles (like dust and soot) are described by Mie's equation, not Rayleigh's. Yes, tiny air molecules do scatter a little bit of red light, but IF the previous author's statements about the sources of sunrise/sunset colors were correct, AT NOON our sky would vary in colors from reds next to the sun, to oranges, greens, purples moving outward to blue at the horizon.
These facts have been accepted and used by spectroscopists (measurement scientists specializing in measurements involving light) since Mie's original publication on this topic in 1908: “Contributions to the optics of turbid media, particularly of colloidal metal solutions”, Annalen der Physik. This stuff is accepted by and is a part of the training of all well-trained spectroscopists. This stuff is not novel, it is not controversial, and it is not new. The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Finally, I'm currently living in Mexico and have limited access to library research and publications, so I don't have opportunities to pull up the references to further polish this material. I am however interested in Wikipedia being factually correct. Entries should start with accurate content, and then progress to inclusion and references to documented sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Good Doctor Fry (talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
If the previous explanations did not satisfy, please consider this: If Rayleigh Scattering explained the intense reds and oranges of good intensely colored sunsets, then: 1.) We would see red in the sky around the sun during the daytime; and 2.) There would be really intense sunset/sunrise colors on the horizon each and every morning and evening from the ordinary air molecules that are there every day. Since we only see the intense colors when dust, soot, etc. particles are floating in the sunlight's path, then Mie Scattering best explains the colors, and Rayleigh Scattering provides only a small contribution. By using a Rayleigh Scattering explanation, you are ignoring the requirement that the wavelength of the light must be 10X LARGER than the scattering particle for Rayleigh formula to apply, which is just not true at sunset/sunrise, regardless of one's ability to understand or apply the mathematics.
At sunset, the blue light from Rayleigh scattering is still there - (in both the scattered light and in the direct light from the sun) - so, your thinking is not necessarily inconsistent, but you haven't included the eye's inability to distinguish it from the rest of the spectrum. The large amounts of scattered red and yellow light just makes it "disappear" into the overwhelming background of the other more dominant colors (colors that the human eye has a more stronger response). e.g. each of the air molecules in the atmosphere still acts like a little prism, preferentially scattering blue light, but it's overwhelmed by all of the red from larger particulate Mie scattering: where Rayleigh Scattering describes a 1/(wavelength)e4 relationship (the reciprocal of the wavelength raised to the fourth power), the which translates to blue being scattered much more strongly than red for molecules and atoms = a generally blue sky when there is little dust or other large particulates in the sunlight's path. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Good Doctor Fry (talk • contribs) 13:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
If these explanations did not satisfy the readers, then you may also read the extensive continuing discussions of this topic (with references) under the Wiki sunset article.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Sun pictures that are NOT sunrise
I saw that 2 pictures were here showing the morning sun well after sunrise, but they were still labeled as sunrise. It should be clarified that sunrise is the INSTANT when the upper edge of the sun becomes visible by crossing the horizon. Any picture that shows ALL of the sun, or much of the sun at all is not really sunrise. The picture of the morning sun at Virginia Beach was especially misleading because the bottom sun was approximately 4 diameters above the horizon, meaning the picture was taken about 10 minutes AFTER sunrise.--Bodybagger (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Shadow
A unusual phenomenon has been noted that at sunrise, say about 6am, shadow of a 6-feet human would be undefined (as tan 0° = 0). But 4 minutes later, at 6.04am, his shadow would have dramatically risen to 352.941 feet (as tan 1° = 0.017) in the direction of west. Throughout the rest of the day, shadows fall continuously in strength and length.
This information is important as the processes involved in sunrise is different from the sunlight for the rest of the day and not yet fully understood. There are serious gaps in knowledge of what happens in the first few minutes after sunrise. Anwar (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The the long shadows at sunrise and sunset could be a valuable addition, but some of the content is unclear. I feel that until the following items are addressed, the material should be left out of the article:
The word "unusual" is not appropriate; the phenomenon occurs 365 times per year in countless locations. Perhaps "remarkable"?
The phrase "has been noted" begs for a citation.
It's not clear what an "undefined" shadow is. Perhaps "infintely long" or "unmeasurably long" is what you meant?
tan 0° indeed equals zero, but without an equation or diagram, it's not clear to the reader why this is relevant
Why do you say the shadow has "risen" to 352 feet? The shadow is shrinking at this time.
The value "352.941 feet" has false precision. Besides, 6ft/tan1° ≈ 344, not 353. Also, the trailing edge of the sun would be at 0.5°, so the penumbra would extend twice as far.
I don't understand what it means for shadows to "fall continuously for the rest of the day". The length decreases until noon, after which it grows.
The "strength" of a shadow is not a commonly-used term. Can you explain this further?
I'm skeptical of your claim that the processes are "not yet fully understood" or that there are "serious gaps in knowledge". Please provide a reference that backs this up.
I went ahead and removed the section. Perhaps we could replace it with something less quantitative, like "shadows just after sunrise can be extremely long, but they shrink rapidly; for example, an adult's shadow at 5 minutes after sunrise would be about 300 feet long, but shrink to 100 feet during the next 10 minutes." (numbers are a guess here, I'm talking about the wording.) Spiel496 (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Does the Southern Hemisphere have sunrises too?
You can't tell from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.172.34 (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Human beings have actually been to the Southern Hemisphere, and it hasn't been in total darkness since the beginning of time. Can we remove this section? ChrisJBenson (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
November 2010
Spiel continues to incorrectly edit this section on color to say that Raleigh Scattering reduces blue light: inserting the false and nonfactual claim:
"The Rayleigh scattering intensity is fairly omnidirectional and has a strong reciprocal 4th-power wavelength dependency and, thus, the shorter wavelength of blue light are effected much more than the longer wavelengths of yellow to red light. The enhanced scattering increases the path length for blue light preferentially, increasing its absorption in the atmosphere,resulting in drastically diminished blue intensity in sunlight reaching an observer.[1][2]"
In reality and mathmatically, Raleigh Scattering describes the INTENSITY = brightness of scattered light: see Wiki article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering on Raleigh Scattering. If one does the Intensity calculations for blue light at 430 nm and for red light at 630 nm, you quickly find that Blue light is 1.44X more strongly, more intensely scattered to the viewer than red light. This means that longer light path lengths through pure dust-free and aerosol-free air has more blue transmitted forward than red, and that red light intensity is diminished and depleted by Raleigh Scattering = less red and more blue proportionately when visible sunlight passes through pure air.
The Mie scattering of visible sunlight at sunrise and sunset by dust and liquid and solid aerosols are the dominant effects that create the appearance of reds & oranges at sunset and sunrise. Spiel continues to incorrectly use scientific terminology, and misquoting, and mis-applying scientific references, and providing broken links to support his non-factual opinions and non-scientific opinions.
If the moderator of this page does not like the wording or the recent (overly?) detailed descriptions that have been introduced into the colors section, then I would be glad to work with you to edit it to Wiki standards - but a simple use of a scientific calculator of Wiki's referenced Raliegh Scattering equation shows that the Blue light in visible light is scattered more intensely by 1.44X than red light, giving us a daytime blue sky (since the part of the sky that daylight passes through has very few particulates and very little aerosols, while the long paths of sunlight through lower atmospheric dust-laden and aerosol laden air layers causes Mie Scattering to create the Red appearances of sunrise and sunset.
Please note that there is no controversy here. Spiel simply does not understand the scientific principles of scattering, and Spiel has not used the Raleigh Scattering calculations, and Spiel does not understand the terminology of the technical articles he quotes and cites, as shown by his continued mis-use of scattering to mean absorption or absorbance = apples and cumquats.
Increased Raleigh Scattering of blue light at sunset and sunrise as Spiel proclaims, would mean more intense blue light at the earth's surface, which would result in Blue Sunsets and Blue Sunrises, which simply proves his mis-understanding of the termimology of "scattering" and "intensity". More intensity = more photons transmitted = a brighter color at the wavelength. Is it a controversy to point out that someone has completely inverted the result of an equation, to give an incorrect backwards explanation? (I mention the controversy issue, because there is a warning about more than 3 edits in 24 hours resulting in blocking my account.)
There is no controversy. These issues of Mie and Raleigh Scattering were resolved over 100 years ago, and everything I have described is accepted by professional spectroscopists around the world. I simply live in Mexico, with no access to a US scientific research reference library - and Spiel has rejected or ignored the 3 previous references I provided 6 months or so ago, because they were too mathematically dense and too complex for him to understand. Must Wiki be held hostage by persistent non-factual edits by amateurs presenting opinions that are exactly opposite to accepted scientific materials, calculations, and principles? The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry
No, it rather is pretty clear that it is User:The Good Doctor Fry who does not understand light scattering. Scattering does not enhance the intensity of the incident beam, but it decreases it. It is a process of attenuation in the direction of incidence, with blue light preferentially scattered into other directions (fairly uniformly) and therefore being removed from observation of the incident beams. The user's lack of understanding of optics is also evident in the false use of the term 'angle of incidence', when stating that low angles occur during sunrise or sunset, when in fact the angle of incidence is the largest during those times. Kbrose (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I did not say that scattering enhances the intensity of the incident beam, I said that blue intensities are enhanced RELATIVE to longer wavelengths like red. You have left out a key distinction that shows that using a visible spectrum of light, blue is simply less depleted than red (where red is more depleted than blue), and I repeatedly wrote that Raleigh scattered blue intensities are 1.44X more intense than red intensities. You have confused absolute intensity with relative intensity. Please, do the math, and you will see the error of the logic of overly simplified explanations.
Recent edits have said thatL "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 increased path length through the atmosphere results in the complete removal of blue and green light from the incident rays, yielding orange to red light."
If the premise that Raleigh Scattering of sunset and sunrise sunlight depletes blue in the line of the sun and increases blue away from the line of sight to the sun at sunrise and sunset to cause the reds and oranges, then the sky would be blue to the left and the right of the sun along the horizon and also above the sun. If Raleigh Scattering were the dominant factor at sunrise/sunset, then Reds would be less visible, because they are scattered less intensely, according to Lord Raleigh's equation. Clearly, the light across the horizon is not blue at sunset and sunrise, it is red or orange. This simple physical observation proves that a Raleigh Scattering model cannot explain red sunsets and sunrises that span the horizon. Mie Scattering is a very complex phenomena, and most Physicists do not understand it, so, they revert to a corrupted interpretation of Raleigh Scattering.
Please, do the mathematics yourself. If you use Lord Raleigh's equation, it shows that blue light is enhanced by Raleigh Scattering vs longer wavelengths = more blue light by 1.44X than red light. Do you see 1.44X more blue at sunset or sunrise than red - off angle along the horizon - which is what Raleigh Scattering would predict = Blue Sunsets/Sunrises? Clearly, if you look at a sunset, there is no enhancement of blue light over red. You may find overly simplified "Physics Made Simple" explanations in some texts, but they are simply factually incorrect, as the mathematics and real world observations clearly show. Mie Scattering off of particles correctly predicts, correctly explains, and correctly quantifies the reds and oranges, which Lord Raleigh's equation does not. Why cling to a misinterpretation of an equation that predicts the opposite of reality, and ignore the equation that does describe and predict real world phenomena?
Physicists make mistakes, this is a spectroscopic scattering issue, not a matter of absorption or absorbance, and any text that uses those terms does not understand spectroscopy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Good Doctor Fry (talk • contribs) 13:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Since User:The Good Doctor Fry agrees that the Rayleigh scattering article is correct, he might read the same explanation there. His physics interpretations are simply wrong. They do not make sense even on the surface. Above he claims 'INTENSITY = brightness of scattered light' which he misinterprets as the intensity of the transmitted light, apparently, whereas it is the intensity of the scattered light. The light intensity an observer sees can be written as I = Iincident - Iscatter, neglecting any absorption (which appears to be about 7% according to some sources). Enhanced scattering in the blue thus removes more blue light than red light from Iincident and the observer sees a red color.
His quoted calculation of 1.44x looked wrong from the beginning as well. Apparently he is not even doing his math correctly as a quick calculation results in scattering of about 5x for 400nm light over 600nm, namely: (6/4)4 = 5 (approx), for which I don't even need a calculator to detect the claims as fraud or hoax. How a loss of 5x in blue over red light does not make a light beam red, and instead make it blue, is puzzling. His claims for a Mie scattering effect are furthermore unsubstanciated, Mie scattering is generally acknowledged to have no strong wavelength dependency, but instead causes diffuse scattering resulting in white or grey foggy appearance. Kbrose (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Kbrose: Thank you for your scientifically correct descriptions of Raleigh scattering.
I realize that I was incorrect in my recent edits of Raleigh scattering from the sunrise/sunset colors section, and that both Raleigh and Mie scattering are necessary to explain the variations of weakly colored sunset and sunrises due almost solely to Raleigh scattering vs. intensely and brilliantly colored sunsets and sunrises from Mie scattering that occur when particulates and aersols are in the air. I mistakenly became to involved in jousting with Spiel (my apologies), and I have edited the section on colors to include the contributions of both Mie and Raleigh scattering, because brilliant sunsets and sunrises that spans the horizon requires both. Raleigh scattering clearly scatters blues and greens off into other directions, successively removing blues and greens from white sunlight, leaving the reds and oranges that can be further scattered by particulates and aerosols by Mie Scattering. This explanation actually returns to one that I wrote a year ago, before edits and Raleigh-only scattering explanations. Sunsets and sunrises without large particulates or aerosols are particularly weak, less intense, and not brilliant when compared to sunsets and sunrises with large particulates and aerosols. Sunsets and sunrises with only Raleigh scattering are only faintly red near the sun and rise only close to the horizon, while sunrises and sunsets with large particulates or aerosols span the horizon and fill as much as a 30 degree angle above the horizon with intense colors from Mie scattering off of the particles. Again, my apologies for losing focus, and forgetting my earlier explanations that cover all types of sunsets and sunrises.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry
Re Diagram: I admit that I am a total klutz at providing the diagram of sunlight scattering by Raleigh and Mie Scattering, but the diagram does pictorially show what happens, and would seem helpful to non-scientific readers. I'll be glad to provide the diagram by email to anyone who wants to contact me, so, they can make it more attractive.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry
May we please include a diagram that shows scattering of sunlight? I'd like to hear from some other users other than just one. The initial diagram I inserted was poor quality. The current diagram gives appropriately colored descriptions of both Raleigh and Mie Scattering. Could we please consider including the diagram for a time, and soliciting other people's opinions?
Per Spiel's comments on Wiki Sunset's discussion page: I agree with Spiel. The Diagrams explain Sunrise and Sunset colors, (better than lots of text for typical readers?), showing how the White Sunlight gets turned into Reds and Peach colors at Sunrise and Sunset. Sidelight re Spiel's comments: I got up early this morning with exactly the same thought in mind: Remove the boxes that currently have the captions, because they horribly clutter-up the diagram. I propose we move the text boxes into a separate diagram that works with the first diagram: I have inserted both diagrams for people to inspect and make comments. Does this work for other readers?
Thanks.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry
Here are current smaller and improved diagrams to respond to other's requests. Please note that none of the other diagrams that I could find on the web show the shifting colors and the relative intensities of scattering as well as these two
The two diagrams are a little hard to read, but the pictures of the color changes makes sense. Let's keep the drawings. Wanbli-G53 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanbli-g53 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Per GianniG46's suggestions, I have edited the two diagrams to eliminate extra cluttering text boxes, and I have increased the font sizes to make them very readable = comparable to the article's text.
Dear GianniG46, you have deleted the diagrams showing what causes sunrise and sunset colors. Can you explain why you deleted them? I would certainly welcome better diagrams, if you have copies that are free to use in Wikipedia. I think the diagrams are very useful to young students and average Wiki readers who don't know about how sunsets and sunrise colors are created by atmospheric scattering effects.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry
Where did the 2 drawings go. I think they are good and want to use them in a paper. Can the diagrams please be included in this articcle?
Wanbli-G53 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanbli-g53 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
____________________________________________________________________
I would like to use the sunlight-sunset-sunrise drawings in a paper, and I need to reference them, and they are better at describing the color shifts and color refractions than other drawings on the internet, and they are also the only ones available for use by the public, where the other Raleigh scattering and Mie theory drawings showing light scattering are not available for free public use.
If the people here keep deleting them, please tell me where I an find a free use diagram that shows the color shifting effects - using colors and ray diagrams to show all the different effects.Wanbli-g53 (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Wanbli-g53
Alvegaspar,
I am confused by the continued deletion of useful diagrams, when you offer no technical nor scientific nor factual issue for deleting them. If there is an edit war, I am not involved. I have little experience with Wikipedia, and I did not know Wiki's rules on the # of edits allowed per day. There is no mystery as to why I was temporarily banned last week, because I simply did not know this site's rules. When I learned the rules, I evaluated how I had acted, I publicly apologized. People have requested diagrams in the past, so, I then rewrote the section to reflect the importance of both Rayleigh and Mie Scatteering. To further the knowledge process and increase understanding, I created novel diagrams that pictorially show the complex processes for readers that may not understand scientific jargon. Alvegaspar, (as Wanbli-G53 observed), does not seem to be contributing to improving the article in any substantive way, just deleting things for unknown reasons, nor does Alvesgaspar offer any solid justification for deleting the descriptive diagrams. Alvegaspar's reference to "sockpuppets" on this issue is similarly confusing - and appears to be some sort of insult, which would mean the only viable reasoning Alvegaspar can use to support deleting useful unique diagrams is to resort to obtuse name-calling? I would be glad to address any technical or scientific issues the Alvegaspar can offer, but I cannot find where he has raised any substantive issues that we could dialogue over.
I much appreciate Spiel's & Kbrose's et al's scientifically well reasoned and referenced approaches to working together to get to a good final product, and I am confused by Alvesgaspar's and GianniGs mostly unexplained repeated deletions. Again, let's work together to keep improving this article, as it constructivey evolves to ever-better content.
It should be clear by now that I am not a Wiki-guy, nor am I a Wiki-expert, so I do not know how to manipulate Wikipedia's systems, but just like my persistence in past years to fix repeated factual errors in the "earliest and latest sunset" section, I simply enjoy the underlying science, and I attempt to translate that knowledge into items that the general typical reader can understand. As such, I likely have violated protocols by posting this here, and I ask the indulgence of the mediators/administrators.The Good Doctor Fry (talk)The Good Doctor Fry —Preceding undated comment added 23:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC).
I have edited and updated the 2 diagrams to address concerns that GianniG46 raised. What do you think of the new diagrams? What improvements could be made to make them more useful? I compared them to the other website's diagrams offered above, and none of the other diagrams address the color issues. In a similar vein, I think it could be useful to include a picture that shows what a sunrise/sunset that primarily has only Rayleigh Scattering - and how dull the red colors are? This picture shows such an example of sunset/sunrise without Mie Scattering, but this photo is of a sunset: Sunset due primarily to only Rayleigh scattering, taken about one hour after sunset at 500m altitude, looking at the horizon where the sun had set. Note the dull red colors when there are few aerosols or dust or soot and no clouds to give the intense reds from Mie Scattering at sunset or sunrise. I think comparing and contrasting this foto with intensely colored sunrises makes the point of the importance of Mie Scattering in creating brilliant sunrisesThe Good Doctor Fry (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry
-
Info - I have reverted the colors section. Please, The Good Doctor Fry, seek a consistent consensus before making this kind of changes. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
-
I have included official NASA and NOAA explanations and references that definitively describe the scientific phenomena that cause the colors of sunrise and sunset, along with citations of references as requested above. The official NASA and NOAA explanations also fit with all the other references listed in the article by other contributors.
When scientists in a sub-specialty agree on an explanation for over a century, and the mathematical equations accurately describe the real-world phenomena, then it does not make sense to devolve Wikipedia content to incorrect or incomplete "consensus" opinions of non-experts. It is better and appropriate to use complete and correct and accepted and referenced scientifically supported explanations. The theories that describe and calculationally predict the colors of sunrise and sunset are from spectroscopy, a highly specialized subset of Physics and Chemistry, and as such, spectroscopy is not well understood by typical Physicists nor typical Chemists.
Should the content of Wikipedia that concerns exotic and highly theoretical scientific topics be controlled by non-experts and dictated by the supposed consensus of people who have no training nor direct expertise in such exotic sub-specialties? If there are remaining issues of writing style or presentation styles, then let's work through the style issues consensually, while leaving the appropriate references and accurate & sufficient information intact. e.g. Does Alvegaspar contest or reject NOAA and NASA's concurring explanations? If so, I request that Alvegaspar please document sources and document information that justify his on-going non-scientific edits.
Alvegaspar alleges an edit war, as a red-herring / diversion(?) or cover for his scientifically-unjustified and scientifically-incorrect and scientifically-incomplete on-going edits, when in reality there has only been a resolute Ph.D. Spectroscopist (myself) who simply does not know Wikipedia's rules and conventions, a simple guy who does not know how to manipulate the rules and machinery of Wikipedia (unlike Alvegaspar who is an expert at Wiki-machinations). While I do not know Wiki-machinations or Wiki-politics, I do know the spectroscopy. I apologize for taking 2 years to find authoritative official NOAA and NASA references to support my clumsy descriptions of the last century's scientific understandings of sunrise and sunset colors.
Can Wikipedia's sunrise and sunset articles rise to the professional levels of other similar technical and scientific Wikipedia articles on other scientific and engineering topics, or must the sunrise and sunset articles remain stripped-down, less-than-accurate, less-than-detailed stories about little more than pretty colors and oooohs and ahhhhhhs, because some consensus-based non-scientific editors do not understand the underlying complex science? I think many Wiki-users would like to know about exactly why sunrises and sunsets have special colors, and it takes extended descriptions to describe the chains of sequential events that describe whats going on overall, without reverting to the use of higher order Bessel functions and advanced calculus (which are necessary to fully understand and describe what happens at sunrise and sunset).The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry
-
Alvegaspar repeatedly continues to delete the key official NASA and NOAA references for unknown reasons. These two references explain and document the reasons why both Rayleigh and Mie scattering are important, and the NASA and NOAA references describe the underlying science and spectroscopy far better than the other references. Alvegaspar gives no reasons for his deletions, and his deletions reduce the utility of the article. He also deletes a very useful fotos, also giving no justifications nor explanations.
May we please include the NOAA and NASA references and use their official information - information that resolves the ongoing disagreements of the past 3 years?
Comment -- The articles on Sunrise and Sunset are not supposed to be scientific papers but entries of a general purpose encyclopedia, aimed at the common reader. This does not imply necessarily that the text should be inaccurate or childish. On the contrary, it is usually possible to explain complex phenomena in simple terms. It all depends on the knowledge and talent of the writer. From what we see here, maybe the people involved in this fight don't know enough about the phenomenon, after all, or don't have enough talent to explain it in simple words. If that is the case, maybe they should leave the task to others. The continuation of the present edit war will not bring anything positive to the project or to the editors. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
-
Applicable discussions and proposals from the Sunset Discussion page:
Good Doctor Fry, here is my suggestion: Pick the most important fact that you feel is missing from the current version and add/modify a couple of sentences to remedy the situation. The edit you're pushing is a huge rewrite of the section that I can't even identify what you feel is lacking in the existing version. In other words, make some incremental changes. Hell, my effort to remove the single word "reflection" from the first sentence got another editor so steamed up he/she reported me to an admin! So you can imagine how your 1000-word modification might meet some resistance. Spiel496 (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Spiel, I like your suggestion on the face if it. The "1000-word modification" is actually an incorporation of things that you wrote, things that Kbrose wrote, where I merged the contributions of about 4 authors/editors from past versions - so, if Alvegaspar really was following the principles he proposes of consensual content and consensus editing, the version I propose above actually best fits a consensus of contributions from multiple authors (all who understand parts and contribute factual adn scientific parts). I used the paragraphs of at least 4 other authors/editors, and added three observations and 3 supporting sources about: 1. How Mie Scattering plays a key role by scattering remaining reds and yellows and peach colors by larger aerosols: clouds, particulate matter (dust soot, etc), and liquid aerosols like sulfuric acid droplets. to create larger areas of more brilliant and more intense reds/yellows/peaches. 2. I added how this increased scattering of light to the viewers is shown by the mostly Rayleigh-only foto versus the typical sunset/sunrise foto with coulds. and 3. I added the NASA and NOAA references that most completely describe the overall processes and the details of the processes: both Rayleigh and Mie Scattering during the daytime vs. sunset/sunrise effects.
So, if you ignore Alvegaspars: non-scientific reductions, and his deletions of key references, and his deletions of fotos, and his deletions of both Kbrose's previous text sections, and his deletions of your previous text sections, and his deletions of my previous text section, really, his version is the furthest from a consensus work. If you actually track the text and the ideas, the version I entered above contains the most content from the most authors, where I have simply removed the repetitive sections (where successive edits and successive additions by about 5 contributors created repetitions), and I added the key information from official NASA and NOAA references.
To see the reality and facts of my points, one needs to read all of the last 3 months of edits to recognize how much consensus material from authors that Alvegaspar's minimally scientific edits have removed and deleted. I simply bring back what seem to be the best of the past 2 years of efforts.
Alvagaspar's final criticism that the article should not be a scientific research paper - but instead a general encyclopedic entry - is yet another mischaracterization and another red-herringto justify his making changes. The combined version of scientific entries since last August (see above) does not have mathematical formulae, it presents nothing new nor novel - using only ideas presented and accepted 100 years ago, it uses language that well educated high school graduates have seen before, it uses concepts that well educated high school graduates can understand, and it contains a combination of basic references, written in simple terms, that well educated HS grads can read and understand. By these criteria, the article of consensus editing and consensus ideas proposed above seems to meet the requirements of an encyclopedia entry. If this article really was a scientific paper, we'd have to present the applicable formulae, tables of results, plots and graphs, and all the higher order derivations and mathematics required to apply Rayleigh's theory and Mie's theory, which would require 10 or 20 pages.
Having said all this, I propose we use the version that actually contains accurate material from the most authors from the past 4 months, and use the version that contains the best and most complete references = the one presented above. Alvegaspar's version is actually the 2'nd most recent - it is not an older consensus version like he proclaims, The facts are that Alvegaspar's version contains the least consensually arrived at material, it deletes key references, and it deletes a useful foto that visually shows the differences between Rayleigh-only sunset/sunrises vs. sunsets/sunrises that arise from both Mie and Rayleigh Scattering. Does is make sense to revert to a pared down set of explanations that do not cover all the salient points, which is a version that is also missing key elements, just to satisfy one person who has contributed nothing of substance to either the article or the discussion: Alvegaspar? Let's use the version with the most consensually rooted material and has the best references = the one above.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Which direction is sunrise?
I visited the article page for Sunrise to learn about the direction (compass point) range of sunrise. Of course I have noticed that it depends upon latitude and time of year, but I wondered if there is a simple approximation of the range or value. By simple, I mean I expect the cosine of the normalized date, etc. Could this sub-topic be addressed, even if not answered? Thanks. ChrisJBenson (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, quadrant-wise, the article notes that it's in the northeast quadrant from the March equinox to the September equinox, and in the southeast quadrant from the September equinox to the March equinox. As for computing the exact direction, I think that might be interesting to include if you can find something that is simple. --Spoon! (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The "Location on the horizon" section says that sunrise "is always in the northeast quadrant from the March equinox to the September equinox and in the southeast quadrant from the September equinox to the March equinox." Is this true in the southern hemisphere as well as in the northern hemisphere? Wideangle (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes the quadrants and dates are globally correct. Of course "March equinox to September equinox" is the summer half of the year in the north, but the winter half of the year in the south. --ChrisJBenson (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at the analemma article. A reasonably good method of finding the direction of sunrise is described there. DOwenWilliams (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Too many pictures
There are too many images in this article. Because we can't have a depiction of the sunrise in the home place of every editor, a rational choice should be made. Why not compile a gallery of good images in this discussion page and reach a consensus on which are the best, as made in Sunset? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree, too many. I vote for this one: One Minute before Sunrise in Joshua Tree California, USA
We should consider that sunrise happens when the sun's upper limb touches the horizon. An image of the sun just peeking over the horizon would be most accurate, even if there are others that are more beautiful.
I support a gallery of images at the end that show different phenomena, but the standard should be high. Everybody takes sunrise pictures that they think are the best ever, but they're not always that great.
I agree with WCarlson above: encyclopaedic value should be the prime criterium for choosing a picture, not beauty. As for showing a gallery, I suppose that the practise is not usually welcome in WP, since we have all the pictures available in Commons. Yes, it is a pitty that we cannot show to everybody the beauty of sunrise in our country, but there are so many of them... Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Mr. Spiel496, I would have bet the Farm that it was my friend Alvesgaspar who deleted my Sunrise photo you so kindly are displaying here. I am only here around 6 months; so I have much to learn about Protocol. At first when my Sunset photos were being deleted by Alvesgaspar, I was a bit miffed! However, by now I find the whole subject quite amusing; and have learned much. For instance: You delete my photo there, and then vote for it here. Very interesting indeed. In your contribs page you ask me to "Make a case for this beautiful photo" (unquote) Actually, I only want the photo used if it is the one chosen by the other editors as the photo to represent the article. I'm too old for ego to enter the equation. The photo is probalbly not as good as some we might find in the Valt technically speaking. It was shot at low light with small dital equipment. However, after reading all the info I could pick up right here on this page, I have come to the conclusion that it may be the closest shot to "Actual Sunrise" that was on the Sunrise page. The 1st photo isn't Sunrise at all. So why is it there? Other shots on that page are beauful but also miss the mark. In my photo, at the left hand bottom brightest section, the Sun is just poking it's head up to say hello. It hasn't become high enough yet to overtake the sky and eliminate the color contrast that takes place in the perfect atmospheric conditions; which I was lucky enough to capture that morning. Sometimes the intended reference to a statement like: "Did you see the Sunrise this Morning"?, has little to do with your watch, or the longitude and latitude; but only refering to the incredible beauty of the sky at that magic moment when it's captured by the Human eye at or around Actual Sunrise in perfect atmoshpheric conditions to delight the viewer and make an unforgettable life long lasting impression. That's how I felt when I saw the Sunrise in question here up close and personal. You all know too well that what we perceive on the horizon at Sunrise and Sunset under interesting atmospheric conditions is refracted light and not the actual Sun anyway. In defence of all of the beautiful photos on that page right now, and all of those that have been deleted by editors who all seem to have a different opinion of exactly when Sunrise is, let me state this fact I learned in Grammer School: "Sunrise is more of an Event"....than a precise moment. Pocketthis (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
According to the article, sunrise actually is an instantaneous event, so it makes sense to have a photo taken near that time. However, in my opinion, if the photo is taken within two minutes of the sunrise event (upper edge of disk crosses the true horizon) then it's close enough. If we get more picky than that, we end up in arguments that can't be resolved by the available data. Spiel496 (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree in with everything you said. However, sadly the only way to witness "actual Sunrise or Sunset" in the technical term put forth on this page, one would need to witness a totally clear sky with as little humidity as possible. This would not make for a very beautiful photo. I think in the case of Sunrise and Sunset the WP pages should show these spectacular events in all weather conditions one might experience....especially those that might provoke the following statement: "Did you see the Sunrise this morning?" This section is a perfect place for those Graduates of Science and the Arts to come together in beautiful harmony.
Pocketthis (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
We need to cover both the scientific definition (an instant) and the casual definition (a period of time) (I'm going to mention this distinction in the intro). Even for the pics with the sun peeking over the horizon, the caption would be best to read "1 minute after sunrise" instead of "at sunrise". I do think it's still appropriate to also have before- and after-sunrise images, but there should be at least one that is taken during to demonstrate the effect. The one in the article intro is pretty close.TWCarlson (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
unhelpful discussion
Hello Editors, I climbed up on my roof this morning in anticipation of an expected spectacular Sunrise. I took many beautiful photos. Too many to display here. The one I am presenting to you for your consideration this morning I find especially unique; because at exactly 72 seconds before the Sun peeked it's head out by my stopwatch, the Moon became visable above the oncoming Sunrise.Pocketthis (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)The Moon becomes Visable 72 Seconds Before Sunrise
You really have to get a decent camera, the quality of your picture is very poor. Please check the difference between your photo and this one (a sunset), recently nominated in Commons FPC. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
And perhaps develop better photoshop skills so that foreground and background can be joined together with a rather less obvious line ? Fooling the EXIF data is child's-play, fooling the human eye is a much greater challenge VelellaVelella Talk 22:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Alvesgaspar, I didn't catch the foreground in it, because I was too busy tying to capture the moon above it. The photo I took a few seconds after it had the full foreground. However, since all the foreground was captured, the moon wasn't. It was the same Sunrise and the foreground in it is the true forground that was there. Compare the photos. They are nearly identical except for the incomplete foreground. I was trying to "Fool" No One. I was simply improving the scope of the picture. That's what Photoshop was designed for. I have taken photos of Rainbows that were so wide, even the widest angle lens couldn't get it all; so I would have to take three seperate photos and paste them together to get it all in. I eliminated the telephone pole from the foreground, and enhanced the photo by adding the foreground that was there from the next shot. I will take your advice and practice my photoshop skills even though I believe that you would have "Examined" any photo I posted even if it never saw Photoshop. The photo you see here that I've just added is the "original" with less foreground. It has NEVER been in a Photoshop program; as I'm sure you will discover when you re-examine it with your Star Trek equipment. Now don't you feel silly? I posted a photo for consideration. That still stands. I like it or I wouldn't have posted it for the Editors consideration. If the Editors don't like it....don't use it. But please don't be so quick to accuse someone of "FOOLING" anyone. I think the quality of the photo and the Leica Lens Camera I used to take it are just fine.
Please check again, this time more carefully. I didn't accuse anyone of anything. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that comment was aimed at me. Pocketthis, if you re-read, I hope that you will agree that I accused nobody of trying to fool anybody else. I suspect we may speak in slightly different dialects of English for my comment to be misunderstood in that way. I have no reason to believe that you were trying to fool anyone. My comment simply intended to indicate that the eye is able to discriminate in ways that data cannot easily convey. For the record, I too would be very pleased with either shot if I had taken them, and I too have a Panasonic camera with a Leitz lens. But..... in your shoes I would have uploaded the very best shots to Commons and, if I thought them appropriate, I would drop a note here asking other editors to consider whether they might replace one of the existing shots and leave the choice to the community. Regards VelellaVelella Talk 15:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
My error. Since it was you Velella who used the word 'Fooling', I apologize to our self appointed Editor and Chief of anything Photography related on Wikipedia: Alvesgaspar. I saw those three postings as 'one' by him. Possibly because he posted twice, and his second post was one word: 'Indeed'....lol. Actually I took at least a dozen photos that morning of different angles and exposures. However, I've resolved myself to believing that this page is a Photo war; just like the Sunset page is. I surrender. I'll just go back to work and let what ever happens here happen. I appreciate you explaining your comments. Happy New Year to all the hard working Editors. Regards Pocketthis (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is your error. In believing that some kind of war is going on and that there is a cabal against your contributions leaded by some users with special powers (myself). Well, you are wrong. In the last years photographic gear has become extremely powerfull and relatively affordable for the common photographer. The obvious result in Wikimedia in general is that the overall quality of the pictures illustrating the articles has improved dramatically. When we take a very common subject like sunsets and sunrises we realize that there are dozens of very good photographs competing for a place in the corresponding articles. Unlike you I'm just an amateur photographer. But experienced enough to know that the pictures you took recently with a point-and-shoot camera are way below the required quality bar. A quick browsing through the Commons categories of sunrise and sunset will show what I mean. So, please stop insinuating that you are being treated unfairly and do your best to improve on the quality of your pictures. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I was definetly going to allow our friend Alvesgaspar to get the last word in here before I moved on. (and he still probably will.) However let's get Five Facts correct here:
Fact#1: I never said I was being treated unfairly. Perhaps it's you Alvesgaspar that needs to read more carefully this time. Fact #2: Most Modern Digital Cameras today have Auto Exposure Settings as well as manual; as is the case with the Lumix I now use in my retirement, and is quite capable of delivering "technically" acceptable Photos especially if the subject matter is fixed and well lit; just like most modern Cameras today. Fact#3: A photo taken with a Large Format Camera, or any any camera capable of taking what you refer to as "Quality Photos", can only be as good as the hands that are holding the Camera, the eyes that see it, as well as the instinct of the user whom decides when the shutter will open. The photos on the Sunrise and Sunset pages are Quality Photos in the "Technical aspect", and somewhat poor in the "Artistic". Fact#4: Clouds are soft, moving and sometimes transparent or Luminous. A "Crisp" photo of a sunrise means that there were no clouds; thus no interesting atmospheric conditions to enhance the beauty of the sky. Hense the Sunrise Page is a dull place to visit visually. Fact#5: What you consider a "Quality" photo ,and what I consider a "Quality" photo are two different animals. The page is a Bore or we wouldn't be here taliking about it. The the Photo War I refer to is the one you caused; because your definition of Quality has been tainted with technical mumbo jumbo that means little to the actual definition of the word when referring to a photo's "Artistic Appeal". Please try and broaden your perception of the word "Quality". It may mean the difference of this page actually improving the Wiki page in question here. Pocketthis (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Please be my guest and have the last word in this discussion, which is leading nowhere. But I'm afraid the last word concerning which pictures are used in the articles belong to the community. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there anything substantial left to resolve? The Sunset and Sunrise articles have correctly included both Rayleigh and Mie Scattering descriptions. Both articles have the scientifically correct and internally consistent NOAA and NASA references. If someone wants to go through and edit out the factually incorrect and factually incomplete general physics text references (deleting the general high school level references that conflict with the NOAA and NASA references), then I fully support that. As long as the articles don't return to the incorrect descriptions of blue light being "absorbed", where "scattering" is the proper verb, then I'm on board.
I think good quality accurate diagrams showing blue light being Raleigh scattered in all directions to show how white daytime sunlight + air makes an apparent blue sky & apparent yellow sun, and a second diagram that shows white sunlight making a long-path-caused Rayleigh scattered reddish horizon at sunrise with subsequent Mie Scattering off clouds and aerosols to enhance peach, orange, and red colors in the sky up to 30 degree angles or so above the horizon.
I leave the descriptions of the higher order Bessel functions and Mie Scattering theoretical equations to Alvegaspar to deacribe in the talk pages, since he now understands them.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TWCarlson (talk • contribs)
What are the "factually incorrect and factually incomplete general physics text references"? If you'll point them out I'll be happy to make the modifications to the article. TWCarlson (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
TW: You raised the issue of contradictory references when you wrote me the note:
!" Good Doctor Fry, Thanks for your participation in the sunrise article. In December 2011 I made a lot of structural and content improvements to the article, but I found the color section to be the hardest. The references that I could find were confusing and sometimes contradictory to each other. "
You (TW) noted the contradictory and confusing references, so, it could be helpful to hear from a layman's vantage point which items need review. As I replied on my Talk Page, the NOAA and NASA references are correct and fit the last 100 years of spectroscopic measurements and theory - while the physics books references were poorly worded, sometimes inaccurate, and universally incomplete (missing Mie Theory).
The physicists on Wikipedia and physics text references lack of understanding of Mie Scattering's role in colorful sunsets and sunrises - especially where the colors rise more than 10 deg. above the horizon - was a key issue in 3 years of debate - where one side insisted that blue light was absorbed (versus the correct process = scattering - see my diagrams) and they insisted that aerosols & particles must be only Rayleigh scattering the white light to cause the red light well above the horizon - which violates Rayleigh's Law for aerosols and particles with diameters equal to or larger than the wavelength of the light. Typical sunset and sunrise scattering above 5-10 degrees above the horizon fits Mie Scattering equations and 100 years of accepted spectroscopy. The inadequacy of the Rayleigh-only scattering is shown in a foto that Alvegaspar repeatedly deleted. By deleting a key foto that showed Rayleigh-only scattering and by deleting the colored ray diagrams, those previous edits left the Colors section in a slightly confusing state. I included versions of the diagrams without the SmartDraw logo - but those were also deleted by Alvegaspar. I personally think that the diagrams are equal to or better quality than all other Rayleigh scattering diagrams that come up on Google searches, but my interests are in effective teaching & learning of accurate information - with diminished personal interest in producing Madison Avenue level slick & uber-pretty images. Until the critics come up with a better pair of diagrams, I believe that using mid quality but fully accurate diagrams to be better than no diagrams at all. If one reads other Biological and Engineering and Physics articles on other everyday scientific issues, those articles are generally far longer than the sunset and sunrise articles - so, the sunrise and sunset articles are in no current danger of becoming research articles nor scientific treatises.
How would you like to proceed? TW, could you identify the specific items you found contradictory and confusing? I'd work to clean them up if you point me towards them. The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Strictly for my educational purposes...How close to Actual Sunrise would the experts here consider this photo? There was Civil Dawn, which is when I preprared myself to take this shot; and then suddenly there was what you see here. Thanks in advance for any replies.
I hazily remember from physics-for-psych majors that at certain times of year if you are closer than 22.5 or 23.5 degrees to one of the poles then the sun neither rises nor sets. At certain times of year it just goes around slightly above the horizon, at other times of year it goes around slightly below the horizon. Is that true? I think this is the right article to address that question. If I'm wrong about non-existent sunrises/sunsets I think the belief is common enough to warrant a correction in this article.
Swdavison (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
You are quite correct. North of the Arctic circle or south of the Antarctic circle the sun will never set for at least one day each year. At the respective poles, the sun remains above the horizon for 6 months and below the horizon for 6 months. However the reality to the observer is slightly different due to the various optical effects detailed in this article which means that for many weeks the sun appears to be grazing above or below the horizon whilst in summer rising to a maximum height at noon and sinking lowest or below the horizon around midnight. I am sure that there must be plenty of good references for that out there somewhere. VelellaVelella Talk 23:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Different sunrise types
It's possible to define "sunrise" three different ways. The type of sunrise we're used to hearing about, when the upper limb of the Sun first clears the horizon, is known as celestial sunrise. But depending on where you live, the Sun may not become visible at the time of celestial sunrise if there are mountains to the east of you. So I define topographical sunrise as the time when the upper limb of the Sun first peaks over the terrain to the east. But even at topographical sunrise, the Sun still may not become visible; it won't happen if there are clouds in the way. So then, I define meteorological sunrise as the time when the sun first peaks out from behind the clouds and finally becomes visible. Meteorological sunrise may occur at any point in the day, or it may not occur at all if the sky remains overcast throughout the day. -- Denelson83 22:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I guess we should include theoretical sunrise, which is the time that theoretical calculations indicate that your celestial sunrise would be occurring, in the absence of mountains, clouds, etc. Tables of sunrise times refer to theoretical sunrise. DOwenWilliams (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
False photo claim
A sunrise over the western united states. The ISS orbits the globe in about 92 minutes therefore the crew experiences 16 sunrises and sunsets each day. Here, the station has not yet passed over the terminator, so the ground below it is still in darkness.
This image does not featuring a sunrise but a moonrise. It is impossible to see stars and the sun at the same time with the naked eye as well as with photographic illustration. See here at paragraph 4, the difference from the bright sunlight to the faint starlight is too big. This photo has an exposure time of a half second with direct view to the allegedly sun, those photo would be completely overexposed. You can observe the other photos of the category Sunrises from orbit for real sunrises, an other example for a similar moon photo is here.
BTW where is the terminator? You have to see leastwise an edge of it. In that altitude the sun must illuminate a part of the visible earth. --Ras67 (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
If the object in the picture is the Moon, then its phase is full, so the Sun must be behind the camera, and the ground should be in daylight, or at least in twilight.
My guess is that the photo was concocted, maybe by taking a long-exposure image of the stars, etc., before sunrise, then superimposing a short-exposure image of the Sun just after sunrise.
Here are the moon phases of August 2015. On the 10 August the moon looks so. The sun have to be left under the horizon respectively out of frame. The image was shot at 7:58 UTC. Due to the given coordinates the local time on the image is ca 0:58 o'clock. Thats middle in the night and i would expect the moon and not the sun in the sky! --Ras67 (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
On 10 August, the Moon was a waning crescent. New Moon is today, 14 Aug. The image in the picture doesn't look crescent-shaped. At about local midnight, both the Sun and the Moon would have been below he horizon (unless the picture was taken from about as far north as the ISS goes, in which case either of them could have been visible) but the info on the picture says it was taken at about 29 degrees north. The astronaut who took the picture isn't a fool. If he says he photographed the Sun, he probably photographed the Sun, but how he could have done it is a mystery. Could it have been a reflection on the inside of the window? DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The (waning crescent) moon is also overexposed, so that you can't see the crescent. Normal exposure times for moon photographs are hundredths like here.
Scott Kelly isn't a fool, that's clear! He never said, that he photographed the sun. Kelly wrote, "#GoodMorning to those in the western #USA. Looks like there's a lot going on down there. #YearInSpace" For him is morning 7:58 o'clock, the ISS utilizes UTC. The NASA scribbler falsely concluded here, if Kelly writes it is morning, then must rise the sun. --Ras67 (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
"eastern horizon"
The introductory sentence currently reads "Sunrise or sun up is the instant at which the upper edge of the Sun appears over the eastern horizon in the morning." I propose deleting the word "eastern" because it is misleading. The direction of the sun at sunrise will be due east only near the equator or at the equinox; otherwise it can vary anywhere from north (near the Arctic circle at the June solstice just after local solar midnight, or near the Antarctic circle also at the June solstice just before local solar noon), through east, to south (near the Arctic/Antarctic circles at the December solstice). Obviously in the introductory sentence all these considerations cannot be discussed; the choice is really whether to include the word "eastern" or to omit it. I suggest removing it because it gives a clear impression that the sunrise is in an easterly direction even though it may not be. I don't think people can be expected to interpret "easterly horizon" as meaning an entire 180 degrees of possible directions centred on east. What, with reasons, do others think? There is an analogous question of whether to include the word "western" in the intro sentence of the sunset article, but there is no merit in having separate discussion at that talk page over what is essentially the same issue, though I will post a link to it there. (I already made the changes, and these were undone with an accompanying derogatory edit summary of "Reverting recent silliness." I hope the issue will be addressed here with a little more politeness. Thank you.) --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 07:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
First, let me apologize for the aforementioned derogatory edit summary "silliness". Your edit got scooped up and deleted when I took out the novel that someone has been writing in the twilight related articles. It was not aimed at you ..sorry. We are educated from 1st grade that the Sun "rises in the east and sets in the west". However, most people don't realize that is a generalization. Actually, the Sun only rises exactly due east and sets due west on 2 days of the year: 'the spring and fall equinoxes' On other days, the Sun rises either north or south of "due east" and sets north or south of "due west." Each day the rising and setting points change slightly. At the summer solstice, the Sun rises as far to the northeast as it ever does, and sets as far to the northwest. Every day after that, the Sun rises a tiny bit further south. However, due to the earth's rotation, unless you happen to live on the North or South Poles, it always rises somewhere the eastern half of the sky, and sets in the western half. So, I think in its current context it should be left exactly the way it is, However, I personally wouldn't have any objection to adding new information in a new section in an attempt to further educate, and clarify the issue. Write the section if you choose to, and please use respected citations for your facts, especially when describing the degrees north and south of east and west the sun may wander over 365 days. Thanks - Pocketthis (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Apology accepted, thanks. On the substantive point, what you say regarding the facts is not in dispute, but my concern is that the phrase "eastern horizon" conveys (or potentially conveys) a very different impression from "the eastern half of the sky", namely that it is due east. There is already a section called "Location on the horizon" which gives more detail, and which could perhaps be expanded. But the issue at hand is still the single word "eastern" in the opening sentence. Whilst the introduction is not the place to discuss all the subtleties, it should still avoid saying anything that may actively mislead. I cannot think of any succinct way to express in the introductory sentence the fact that sunrise occurs somewhere in the eastern half of the sky, so I think that it is better to be conservative and just give the basic definition, leaving mention of where sunrise occurs (which is not an essential part of the definition) to later in the article. If it is really necessary to refer to the location in the intro then it will need a separate sentence at the end of the opening paragraph, in order to be explicit about "eastern half" rather than hoping that people understand "eastern horizon" to mean that. For example "Sunrise always occurs somewhere in the eastern half of the sky.". What do you think? Thanks, --Money money tickle parsnip (talk)
01:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
After reading the article in its entirety, it would seem the eastern issue is explained in the body sufficiently, and I have reverted myself there in your favor. Thanks for the conversation. Happy editing - Pocketthis (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
After reading both the Sunrise and Sunset openings many times, I incorporated the equinox facts in the latter half of the openers on both articles. Seems to fit nicely there, and I hope this settles the east/west issue for all that have been following this. Thanks - Pocketthis (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. I will try out a couple of other tweaks to those sentences, I hope uncontroversial but let's discuss here if you disagree with them. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The "east" thing again
The current version now reads "The Sun will rise exactly due east only at the spring and fall equinoxes, which each occur only once a year." (underlining mine). Whilst this is largely true, it is not completely so, because for observers on the equator the sun will rise due east all year. Provisionally I will remove the (first) word "only" in that sentence, just so that the article is not saying anything actually incorrect, and can we please discuss a suitable replacement sentence? I think the problem is that:
the basic thing we are trying to say is that the sun rises in the east, but we know it is not normally exactly due east (this only arises at the equinoxes or on the equator) and in fact could be anywhere between north and south on the east side
if we discuss the sun direction in the introductory paragraph at all, then it has to be fairly concise, max one sentence, but anything that we do say cannot sacrifice precision just to achieve conciseness
Some possible suggestions:
Simply delete the sentence (so that sunrise direction is only discussed where there is space to explain properly)
Replace the sentence with "The sun always rises in the eastern half of the sky." and do not try to explain when it is exactly due east.
Replace the sentence with "The sun always rises in the eastern half of the sky, although it rises exactly due east only at the spring and fall equinoxes or on the equator."
Note that in suggestion #3 I have still omitted that each of the two equinoxes occurs only once a year; I think that the "only" already makes it clear that due east is the occasional exception rather than the rule. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
If my mental geometry is correct, then it's when the centre of the sun crosses the horizon that we get exact east and west at the equinox. Thus, even at the equinox, sunrise and sunset will not be east and west exactly. Should we not just remove the dubious claims? Dbfirs 16:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
If we want to include a sentence, how about: "The Sun rises approximately due east always in the tropics, and in mid-latitudes roughly eastern sunrise occurs around the spring and fall equinoxes"? Dbfirs 17:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Well it seems we have two choices: Either a very lengthly explanation of all possible areas and the setting potentials for each, or a general statement saying that basically, unless you are in extreme northern or southern locations, the sun rises in the eastern portion of the sky. I'd be fine with that, and if you are, please make the edit. ~ Pocketthis (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
You write, "... it is not completely so, because for observers on the equator the sun will rise due east all year." Not correct. At the equator, the sun will rise due east and set due west only on the two equinoxes, just as is the case for most of the world (one can argue about it at the poles, but that's another topic). From the northern spring (southern autumn) equinox until the northern autumn (southern spring) equinox, the sun will rise north of east and set north of west, reaching its farthest point north at the Cancer (northern summer/southern winter) solstice. Then, from the northern autumn (southern spring) equinox until the northern spring (southern autumn) equinox, the sun will rise north of east and set north of west, reaching its farthest point north on the Capricorn (northern winter/southern summer) solstice. Uporządnicki (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we've argued about this for too long, so I've been WP:Bold and removed the sentence. If someone wants to propose a replacement, then we can discuss it here, but it's difficult to compose an entirely accurate statement. Dbfirs 23:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
^Selected Papers on Scattering in the Atmosphere, edited by Craig Bohren ~SPIE Optical Engineering Press, Bellingham, WA, 1989
