Talk:Belt of Venus

Untitled
I left a longer comment on the talk page of Alpenglow, which is valid here as well. I don't want to clutter this page as well with the same long remark, but please look at it if you're interested.. The main issue I have here is that alpenglow is claimed to be due to a backscattering element. The Belt of Venus and the Zodiacal light are both backscattered, so that is a good comparison. But alpenglow, as I outlined in my other remark mentioned above, is just the refracted (bent) light available when the sun is just below the horizon. It is already reddened through Rayleigh Scattering, and in addition it is also refracted so that you can see some of the light when the sun itself is not visible. Whether or not the light scattering which causes the Belt of Venus is due to fine dust particles, I do not know, but my main issue here is with the descriptions of alpenglow used in the article. I do not know what "characterized by afterglow" means specifically (the afterglow page has multiple issues as well), and if there is a "red band" visible on the far horizon during sunset, that is not the only part of that scene that would be cast in an alpenglow - any objects standing in the light would be in alpenglow, and the "red band" would simply be the portion of that light which is lighting the particles on the far horizon (if they are aerosols, again, I do not know). So I'm trying to call attention to the use of the term alpenglow as describing only the portion of alpenglow which illuminates the atmosphere on the far horizon - alpenglow will also illuminate you or me, but as is most commonly meant, it illuminates mountains in a beautiful way. So I'd like to make changes to this page that split apart the comparisons between the Belt of Venus and Alpenglow. Also, I think the Earths Shadow page has a good description of the Belt of Venus. I also have no idea what a total solar eclipse has to do with the Belt of Venus - is it more visible or something? Any thoughts or comments are appreciated. Here is a link that I believe is reliable: HappyDa (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree the current wording on Belt of Venus distinguishing it from Alpenglow is tedious and confusing. Adding to the confusion, the text on the Alpenglow page says it's a red band "on the horizon" but the example picture shows no reddening in the sky, only on the mountains. Googling alpenglow shows lots of mountains directly illuminated by the sun, so I wonder if that phenomenon is more about the reddening glow from the mountain onto other stuff in the vicinity of the viewer. So the sequence for light in the Belt Of Venus is:  sun - Rayleigh scattering - antisolar sky.  And Aplenglow:  sun - Rayleigh scattering - mountain - stuff.  If so, both pages could stand some significant improvment. Bob Stein - VisiBone (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate Caption
The caption on the picture states "Note that the full Moon is near the centre of the field of view, which means that the Sun must be behind the camera, just below the horizon." This is incorrect, away from equatorial regions during the summer the full moon can be well above the horizon before the sun sets and above. Stub Mandrel (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Origin of the name
The article says, "The name of the phenomenon alludes to the cestus, a girdle or breast-band, of the Ancient Greek goddess Aphrodite, customarily equated with the Roman goddess Venus. "

Alludes to? That looks like a rhetorical means of evading Wikipedia sourcing. The name "Belt of Venus" is modern. There appears to be no sourced origin for this term. When did it originate? Why? Where are the sources? It is apparently a relatively recent expression for a phenomenon which has (of course) always been visible and noticed by observers of sunset and twilight. If there are no sources, then the name should be described as 'origin unknown' or similar. EllenM4014 (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)