File talk:EM Spectrum Properties edit.svg

Shouldn't the penetrance "Y" bar over the visible spectrum extend a bit farther to the right considering that UV light does indeed penetrate the atmosphere? Electronic.mayhem (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, due to that you can tell this picture is obviously a bunch of photos edited together and does not give me confidnce that any of it is actually on the same scale someone should really fix this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.73.220 (talk • contribs)


 * No, the Y bar shouldn't extend over to the UV because UV is almost 99% blocked by the atmosphere as well as the other radiations marked as N. -- penubag  (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I will grant that a large portion of UV radiation does indeed get filtered, but we can't ignore the fact that a portion does get through, and it is enough to take note of. Simply omitting the fact gives a false impression from the image.Electronic.mayhem (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This image is not just a bunch of edited photos together, 203.208.73.220, it was created by NASA and we took it off their site, the source. Also, all radiation penetrates the earth's atmosphere to some extent but it doesn't mean we should mark them all as Y. Life on earth wouldn't even be remotely possible if 50% of UV penetrated Earth's atmosphere, and the little that does, results in observable sunburn, which is nothing. This image may help. -- penubag  (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Electronic.mayhem that the colours in the penetrates atmosphere bar are a bit off. It looks like frequencies below 10 MHz penetrate the atmosphere fine. Well, they don't.... The ionosphere essentially reflects everything below 10 MHZ. On the other side, around 100 MHz the bar is already grayed out. I don't know what percentage of radiation is coming through at 100 MHz, but since it is a popular frequency to observe at (e.g. see LOFAR), graying it out at that point does not convey the right message I would say (even though it might be that some percentage of the radiation is absorbed/reflected). anoko_moonlight (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Protozoa don't represent the approximate wavelength of visible light
As the Protozoa article states, "The most important Protozoans usually range from 10 to 52 micrometers." That is an order of magnitude larger than the average wavelength of visible light. --58.10.198.54 (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Protozoans are typically the size depicted as typical of a needle point. Perhaps we could replace Protozoans with small Bacteria or large Virus in the picture, and the needle point picture with the Protozoa picture.Maaf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Colors are wrong
I have seen this image all over wikipedia and it annoys me because it has errors. Radio waves are not red colored. They are black (invisible) to the human eye. On the color scale, everything below red and above violet should be black. Also, peak red is 4.4 x 10^14 Hz but the image shows it at about 10^13 Hz. I understand it's just a cartoon. But the electromagnetic spectrum is fundamentally a sequence of colors. To get the colors wrong defeats the main purpose of the image. Please fix! 74.104.22.121 (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I strongly endorse this comment. This image should be fixed or deleted. 129.63.129.196 (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Size of the atomic nucleus is wrong
The atomic nucleus article clearly states that "The diameter of the nucleus is in the range of 1.7566 fm (1.7566×10−15 m) for hydrogen (the diameter of a single proton) to about 11.7142 fm for uranium" which means the image has the wrong size (10-12 m). That's two or three order of magnitude larger than the real size of a nucleus. - Assaiki (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

WRONG REPRESENTATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE HIGHER THE FREQUENCY, THE LOWER THE AMPLITUDE!!!!!!! LIGHT WAVES HAVE NO AMPLITUDE, ONLY FREQUENCY!!!!!!!!!

As the frequency goes up, the "wiggly section" should get shorter. It should shrink into nothingness on a digital display as the frequency gets arbitrarily high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.223.203 (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)