How does sunset work

Subscribe TP-Link takes your privacy seriously. By completing this form you confirm that you understand and agree to our Privacy Policy. To provide a better experience, we use cookies and similar tracking technologies to analyze traffic, personalize content and ads.

By continuing to browse this website, you agree to our use of cookies and such technologies. These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be deactivated in your systems. Analysis cookies enable us to analyze your activities on our website in order to improve and adapt the functionality of our website.

The marketing cookies can be set through our website by our advertising partners in order to create a profile of your interests and to show you relevant advertisements on other websites. This Article Applies to:. Here we use HS for example. Steps to change the location Step 1. Go to Devices page, tap three lines icon on the top left corner. Tap on Settings and select Location and Time.

Molecules and small particles in the atmosphere change the direction of light rays, causing them to scatter. Scattering affects the color of light coming from the sky, but the details are determined by the wavelength of the light and the size of the particle. The short-wavelength blue and violet are scattered by molecules in the air much more than other colors of the spectrum. This is why blue and violet light reaches our eyes from all directions on a clear day. But because we can't see violet very well, the sky appears blue.

More atmosphere means more molecules to scatter the violet and blue light away from your eyes. If the path is long enough, all of the blue and violet light scatters out of your line of sight.

The other colors continue on their way to your eyes. And thus it appears so, because your brain loves to do you favors like this. By the way, the effect on stars at the horizon can be really awesome. The twinkling becomes super exaggerated and shifts through many colors though red appears more often. Sometimes I like to take the eyepiece out for a trippy kaleidoscope effect. So, there's really nothing to argue in opposite to Carl Sagan's.

No, he's agreeing with Sagan completely. If knowing a little about the sunset does no harm to its romance compared to knowing nothing , then knowing a lot doesn't harm it either. And Ethan says it's even the opposite of harming the romance: The more you know about the sunset, the more you can appreciate its beauty.

I had some trouble understanding your argument until I realized that there's ambiguity about what Ethan is opposing. Your argument is that Ethan is asserting that he would not only assert the contrary, but the contradictory which is where "opposite" comes in against the same implicit argument call it assertion Y that Sagan is arguing against as opposed to Ethan arguing against Sagan's quoted statement itself, call it "assertion X".

I think that's what Ethan intended and the colon supports this although even if that were not his intention, the colon wouldn't have been out-of-place or changed how his sentence was parsed, so it's ambiguous. All the ambiguity arises from the fact that sentence in relationship to the quote makes it unclear whether Ethan is "opposing" the quote itself, or the implicit claim that the quote also refutes.

I didn't see this at all when I first considered this and now I think it's an even more interesting case in pragmatics than I had already thought. Wouldn't the "exact opposite" imply that knowing a little bit about sunsets DOES harm the romance?

To my parsing, Ethan seems to want to say that Sagan understated the issue, which is not "the exact opposite.

It reads like a logic error. I found it quite jarring, since it was obvious Ethan was amplifying Sagan, not disagreeing with him. It's the opposite of "knowing a little bit about sunsets harms the romance" which Sagan disputed, but did not go so far as to state the opposite. He simply said it is not the case that it harms. Ethan then took it farther by stating the opposite -- that it helps. Which is of course made explicit by the second part of the sentence. The colon itself doesn't mean anything.

The context of the rest of the sentence that follows the colon does. It may be ambiguously worded, but 'ambiguous' means 'open to multiple interpretations'. When one of the ways to parse the first part of the sentence is nonsense and contradicts the rest of the sentence, and another way to parse it makes perfect sense and matches the rest of the sentence AND is what you knew he meant in the first place, then the decision to choose the first one is just baffling.

The concept stated is very interesting. I never before thought of the change in color of the Sun being relative to the distance between a person and the Sun. However, it makes sense as the Sun's rays must travel through more of the atmosphere meaning more Air particles and alter the path of the Sun's waves.

What really interested me about this post was the fact that when the sun is fully set, it has actually already passed. Not only does the atmosphere make up for the changes in color of the sun, but it also bends the path of light so that the Sun is still visible after it has already passed. Ethan, I think you misinterpreted Dr. Sagan's quote.

Others have commented the same. You might was to think about editing your opening statement by agreeing with Dr. If knowing a little about the sunset makes the romance of it more intense, then NOT knowing a little about the sunset DOES harm it compared to the case of knowing a little about it. Your implication is that the romance of the sunset we have when we DON'T know anything about it is the "correct" and maximal value.

No offense to Ethan, since his meaning is clear from the rest of his post, but by saying that he argues the exact opposite of Sagan's quote is inconsistent with the remainder of his article.

Roughly, the English translation is If one knows a little bit about the sunset, then no harm is done to the romance of the sunset. I think that caputures adequately the meaning of Sagan's quote. By DeMorgan's law, this is equivalent to A and B sorry, I don't know how to type the normal "and" symbol.

In English, this translates to We know a little bit about the sunset and the romance of the sunset is harmed, which is clearly not the meaning intended by Ethan in his post. I feel like my above post is quibbling over a very minor point. Your meaning was very clear from the context of the post, so I would not have ordinarily posted something like I did above. I only did so because it seemed to be a topic of discussion in the comments. I had no intention of criticizing your writing. You're being like those idiots going to some under-educated mite in a Dickensian Novel who says "I never done nuffin, guv!

It's really not helpful to try to make authoritative, absolute logic-based parsings of natural language because, for example, it's ambiguous what "exact opposite" is intended to mean. That said, Wow makes a logical fallacy, "denying the antecedent". His argument can be understood as "If P, then Q therefore if not-P, then not-Q", where "knowing a little" as P and "more romance" as Q:. That's a fallacy because things other than P can result in Q and therefore the denial of P does not necessarily result in the denial of Q.

In contrast, the denial of Q does require the denial of P. The gricean interpretation of Ethan is that he intended to argue that he would deny the "exact opposite" of the assertion that Sagan also denies, but less strongly. That's the distinction between Sagan's contrary and Ethan's contradictory. I'm a little put-off by CB's and Wow's combativeness.

There's often ambiguity in language and in all cases not all native speakers will entirely agree on an intended meaning. That some speakers will interpret something differently than others — or, more to the point, that some speakers will find a statement confusing and contradictory until closer examination while others have not trouble with it at all — does not imply that one group of speakers are "right" and the other group is "wrong".

It's clear after close consideration, for some what Ethan intended and it's equally clear that this is obvious to some but less obvious to others and for those the statement was initially confusing and inconsistent.

I feel like this is an argument between people who claim that a joke is funny and people who claim that it isn't, which is a pretty stupid argument. It's kinda sorta maybe interesting to be armchair analytical philosophers and try to rigorously parse what "exact opposite" precisely means in this context but, well, only if we don't let that confuse us from understanding what is the simple intended meaning of what Ethan wrote, which doesn't require such analysis.

Ethan did not craft that statement as an analytic philosopher. That's usually in response to someone trying to take me to task for deconstructing a beautiful event or item.

But they see without knowing, and I believe a little understanding will make you appreciate certain things more and not less. Is the green flash any less amazing whe you understand the physics? Therefore the total amazingness thank you, I make up all my own words!

I'm put off by you saying this but then not actually taking it into account and treating Ethan's statement as if there is a single interpretation to be logically parsed. Language is ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations. Legal documents attempt to remove this ambiguity, and can only partially succeed.

Everyone intuitively understands this. Everyone automatically interprets language by taking into account context. Holding multiple meanings in their head and selecting from them based on their applicability based on what context either already exists or is subsequently established.

You've done it multiple times in this conversation with no need to even note it. Ethan's statement was ambiguous. Of the multiple possible interpretations of the sentence fragment, you picked one other than what he meant. The rest of the sentence establishes context which establishes which was intended.