this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
105 points (99.1% liked)

chapotraphouse

13530 readers
797 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

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

Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 59 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months 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

[–] [email protected] 67 points 9 months ago (2 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!

[–] [email protected] 35 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months 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!

[–] [email protected] 27 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 23 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Blue jays aren't blue orly

Blue jays are like opals owl-wink

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Adam Sandler peering at a Blue Jay with a magnifying glass

"Holy shit I'm gonna cum"

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

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

tails-startled

[–] [email protected] 35 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago
[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months 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

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months 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

[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months 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"

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months 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

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago

ok but im still dying mad

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Shut up and kiss already, nerds!

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"transmission" is analogous to transparency, right?