The graph isn't being drawn relative to the surface of the object you fucking dumbass. It's relative to the center of mass.

It's a log scale so dividing by two doesn't really make it any more informative

>>7803163
Exactly. 10m from me to center of an object means the diameter has to be 20m, not 10m, because it's the radius that matters if we're talking center-to-center.

>>7803172
Good point, should still be clearly visible I think

>>7803175
You realize you're complaining that the dividing line isn't about 10 pixels higher, right?

>>7803175
ok true

but then just divide everything in the chart by 2

literally nothing about the chart changes but the axis labeling

>>7803182
I guess it's a bit unreasonable. I'm more bothered by the fact that it's right where it would be if y axis was radius instead

>>7803182
shit it's not even 10. On my screen the difference would be like 2-3 pixels at most.

Good luck with that aspergers, OP.

>>7803195
Sounds like BS. How did you come to that conclusion? The axis labeling goes (10 mm)^i for natural numbers, and 200 mm would be at (10 mm)^2.3, which is far from 100 mm visually

>>7803227
Oh, forget that

>>7803163
>you fucking dumbass
fucking dumbass detected

>ITT: comic-reading manbabies

and then you have the nerve to shit on popsci