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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] plinky@hexbear.net 53 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 22 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Blue jays aren't blue orly

Blue jays are like opals owl-wink

[–] Sephitard9001@hexbear.net 2 points 2 years ago

Adam Sandler peering at a Blue Jay with a magnifying glass

"Holy shit I'm gonna cum"

[–] Posadas@hexbear.net 41 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] hexachrome@hexbear.net 13 points 2 years 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 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)
[–] hexachrome@hexbear.net 14 points 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years ago (2 children)

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

[–] hexachrome@hexbear.net 11 points 2 years ago

ok but im still dying mad

[–] DefinitelyNotAPhone@hexbear.net 2 points 2 years ago

Shut up and kiss already, nerds!

[–] Abracadaniel@hexbear.net 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"transmission" is analogous to transparency, right?