this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
96 points (99.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13473 readers
1 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank

Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here

Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CarbonScored@hexbear.net 56 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Relevant XKCD quote I think of frequently:

Normal light interacts with the atmosphere through Rayleigh scattering. You may have heard of Rayleigh scattering as the answer to "why is the sky blue." This is sort of true, but honestly, a better answer to this question might be "because air is blue." Sure, it appears blue for a bunch of physics reasons, but everything appears the color it is for a bunch of physics reasons.

When you ask, "Why is the statue of liberty green?" the answer is something like, "The outside of the statue is copper, so it used to be copper-colored. Over time, a layer of copper carbonate formed (through oxidation), and copper carbonate is green." You don't say "The statue is green because of frequency-specific absorption and scattering by surface molecules."

So yes, they are blue. They're just blue for a slightly less common reason than other blue things.

[–] Abracadaniel@hexbear.net 22 points 1 year ago

this is the enlightened take.

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 53 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

You see the light reflecting from paint doesn't actually become blue, it loses yellow nerd

so if i put spectrophotometer, it won't show spike at 460 nm?

well, yes, it would nerd

fucking nerds

[–] EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net 61 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This isn't that pedantic paint shit. The tweet did a bad job of explaining

Blue Jays are blue because of structural coloration rather than pigmentation, like how peacock tails or butterfly wings work. While the actual pigmentation on a Blue Jay's wings is brown, the light bending caused by the tiny structures within their feathers makes them blue. Pretty neat!

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The end result is still the same, the neat interference aside, they are "really blue". The starting point of the tweet they are not and it is nerd shit.

The neat interference can be brought up by like comparisons to: gas spills on water, butterflies, tempered steel, dslr lenses, *opals!

[–] EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah bad tweet for sure, I just think structural colour is very cool.

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Blue jays aren't blue orly

Blue jays are like opals owl-wink

[–] Sephitard9001@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

Adam Sandler peering at a Blue Jay with a magnifying glass

"Holy shit I'm gonna cum"

[–] Posadas@hexbear.net 41 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

when I'm at a pedantic nerd competition and my opponent pulls out a spectrophotometer

tails-startled

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You came at me talking about objective facts without scientific instruments? Think better, kiddo

[–] hexachrome@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

a UV-vis spectrum of the pigment in their feathers should look like this and the observed light is from scattering instead of absorption processes. god fuck please wedgie me

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] hexachrome@hexbear.net 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

pedantic shit but since im shrivelling into a corn cob: reflectance spectroscopy on a bulk structure that reflects blue shows that it indeed reflects blue, not that the material comprising the structure itself transmits blue as with pigments

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

rage-cry <- this is me rn.

Pigments (typically used in non transparent dyes) don't transmit, they subtract parts of white light, and reflect what we call their color. Indigo does exact same shit - indeed reflect blue(tm).

its not "an optical illusion"

[–] hexachrome@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

shit fair shout had internal transmittance and absorption mixed up. and yeah it's not an optical illusion, it's still reflecting blue light, just not as a direct result of electronic effects

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We can be two corncobs together in the field meow-hug

[–] hexachrome@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago

ok but im still dying mad

Shut up and kiss already, nerds!

[–] Abracadaniel@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"transmission" is analogous to transparency, right?

[–] zifnab25@hexbear.net 46 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They're red-jays, you just can't tell because they're flying so fast directly at you.

[–] Posadas@hexbear.net 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You fool! That would blueshift them!

[–] zifnab25@hexbear.net 18 points 1 year ago

Only in hindsight are they the correct color.

[–] MF_COOM@hexbear.net 27 points 1 year ago

IDK that sounds exactly like how light works

[–] Xx_Aru_xX@hexbear.net 16 points 1 year ago

I remember seeing a whole ass nerd video talking about it and the only true blue animals are a butterfly and a frog

[–] a_blanqui_slate@hexbear.net 16 points 1 year ago

~~kkkandain$$~~

kkklanadian$$

$ee me after klaSS

[–] Philosoraptor@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago

Did you know that the robin isn't really visible? We only see it as visible because light bounces off of it and enters our eyes.

the guy who named it a "blue jay" was a lying piece of shit, never to be trusted

shoulda called it the "actually not blue you dumb motherfucker jay" instead

[–] AOCapitulator@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah fuck Canada!

What's the joke though?

That is how light works there, its subsurface scattering or thin film interference (don't remember which) isn't it?

[–] KobaCumTribute@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's someone fundamentally misunderstanding an actual fact (that blue colors in nature almost never work the same way as normal pigments, and are a physical structure refracting light instead of a chemical that absorbs other light frequencies and reflects blue ones) as meaning something isn't "really" blue. Like the feathers aren't a blue pigment that could be dissolved in some base and used as paint (presumably) because their color is a structural rather than a chemical property, but it's just silly to decide that the ontology of something "being a color" is dependent on chemical pigments instead of what it literally looks like when exposed to light.

[–] GeorgeZBush@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

(Norm MacDonald voice) That's very uninteresting

[–] spacecadet@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

That's a gorgeous bird right there fr