Talk:Rainbow

Explanation & dispersion

Yesterday, Kintetsubuffalo labeled the following sentences with the tag  : The amount by which light is refracted depends upon its wavelength, and hence its colour. Blue light (shorter wavelength) is refracted at a greater angle than red light, but due to the reflection of light rays from the back of the droplet, the blue light emerges from the droplet at a smaller angle to the original incident white light ray than the red light. The pattern of colours in a rainbow has red on the outside of the arc and blue on the inside-if the red light from one droplet is seen by an observer, then the blue light from that droplet will not be seen because it is on a different path from the red light: a path which is not incident with the observer's eyes. The blue light seen in this rainbow will therefore come from a different droplet, which must be below that whose red light can be observed.

Originally, these sentences tried to explain why red is on the outside of the rainbow. In 2009 someone added two slightly confusing sentences about different droplets. Today I removed them. (Editing history of those sentences: diff today, diff yesterday, diff 2009). Ceinturion (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Variation - Inner Rainbow

I recently saw a type of rainbow that is not mentioned on the page. It was one end of a partial rainbow at a much more horizontal angle than is normal. I'd be interested in an explanation of how it is formed.

I have a photo of it, along with another photo of a double rainbow shot a little later. But when I try to upload, it says I am not authorized to upload to this project (and worse, wikimedia commons appears to want me to create another account). I have no idea how to overcome that problem. Dave Howorth (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The account issue is an easy one. You can use the same account and password if you follow the directions outlined at single unified account. That account would be good for all of the Wikimedia projects.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 13:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"intricate detail"? Really?

I see someone has tagged the scientific history section here for "too much intricate detail". Speaking as a fly-by observer, I thought that was one of the best sections of the article. Vashti (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'll just be bold and eat the tag. Vashti (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

How did it taste? Actually, I quite agree with you. Original tagger is obviously one of the Philistines that WP was meant to help, if only you could lead a horse to water AND make it drink. Anybody who finds a section too detailed is free to skip it. That's the beauty of WP:NOTPAPER and Wikipedia in general. SBHarris 00:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Please help by viewing the entry for this article shown at the page, and check the edits to ensure that any claims are valid, and that any references do in fact verify what is claimed.

I searched the page history, and found 10 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The first picture is a fake because rianbows are optical illusions. Plus, the go in a circle anyway. Kyleronco — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.239.161 (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)