106
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] plinky@hexbear.net 59 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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 67 points 1 year ago

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 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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 27 points 1 year ago

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

[-] plinky@hexbear.net 23 points 1 year ago

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"

[-] rando895@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 1 year ago

It's light scattering rather than "bending", which is not bending but rather refraction due to the differences of the speed of light within the feathers compared to outside the feathers in the air.

[-] Posadas@hexbear.net 45 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

tails-startled

[-] plinky@hexbear.net 35 points 1 year ago

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

[-] rando895@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 1 year ago
[-] hexachrome@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago

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 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[-] hexachrome@hexbear.net 16 points 1 year ago

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 15 points 1 year ago

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 12 points 1 year ago

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 12 points 1 year ago

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

[-] hexachrome@hexbear.net 12 points 1 year ago

ok but im still dying mad

[-] DefinitelyNotAPhone@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

Shut up and kiss already, nerds!

[-] Abracadaniel@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago

"transmission" is analogous to transparency, right?

this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
106 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13690 readers
268 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

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

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS