Comment on Halloween Botany

• psud@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  and thus not a part of the rainbow?

  Colour need not be on the rainbow. Colour is the human experience of colour which includes purple

  Our minds don’t care whether a color is pure or whether it is a mix. We see those colors.

  Like the berries there are technical definitions of colour that don’t mesh with the common definition

  source
• shneancy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  the heck do you mean purple is not an actual colour??

  source

  • chuckleslord@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Purple, the color directly between red and blue, is a creation of your mind interpreting a band of light that triggers your red and blue sensing nerves, but no green is sensed. The actual band of light we can see goes from red to green to blue. Purple doesn’t fall between those colors, meaning it wouldn’t be included in a rainbow, and isn’t any “pure” light you could see, since it doesn’t fall on the spectrum.

    source

    • exasperation@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      What is violet at the end of the visible spectrum, then? We call the higher wavelength stuff ultraviolet, and violet looks purple to me, so I’m having trouble reconciling this stuff with what you’re saying.

      source

      • psud@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Violet is dark spectral blue, added as a separate color by people who wanted 7 not six colors in the spectrum

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • chuckleslord@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        Violet and purple are distinct terms here.

        source
      • general_kitten@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        We call it that but our eyes see the far end frequency as a colour that only very slightly activates blue sensitive cone receptors and no others. For red sensitive cones there is a slight bump in the high end frequencies also that makes it possible for them to look violet as it activates the blue sensitive and a bit of red sensitive receptors but a much purpler purple is made by combining high and low frequencies

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • JayDee@lemmy.ml ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Mould this not disqualify any mixed color? We only have receptors for three colors, and if we’re arguing that. If purple isn’t a color because it’s actually two mixed together, that should also mean colors like orange, yellow, cyan, magenta, atc are also not be colors by that definition right?

      source
    • shneancy@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      ah a similar explanation to why yellow is not an actual colour either

      the silly explanation that has no effect on how we perceive, use, or think about colour. sigh why are the people responsible for those studied calling those colours not real? Why not just colours resulting from mixing other colours like the artists have done since the invention of paint?

      source

      • chuckleslord@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Sorry for the confusion. Yellow is a single wavelength of light. We perceive it with the green and red receptors in our eyes, but it is a single wavelength. Purple isn’t a single wavelength, but two that are being interpreted as a color.

        That was the distinction I was calling out.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • pancakes@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      This is 100% incorrect. Not in terms of science, but in terms of a qualifier of what a colour is. Just because a colour doesn’t exist on the rainbow spectrum, doesn’t mean it’s not an “actual colour”.

      What you’re referring to is the definition of colour specifically by physics. There are other professional fields and areas of science that use different qualifiers for colour. I work with color everyday and I can with certainty say that purple, pink, rust, teal, and sky blue are all colours.

      Kind of like how different fields have different definitions of entropy or different cultures have different names for snow. It’s all dependent on the framework you use and ignoring every other framework is wrong.

      source
    • essteeyou@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Your definition of color is based only on human perception? Is purple a color for a mantis shrimp?

      source

      • chuckleslord@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        Definition I’m using is any color that can be expressed as a single wavelength of light. Purple cannot be, since it’s actually two wavelengths simultaneously.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • mojo_raisin@lemmy.bestiver.se ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Like binaural beats for the eyes?

      source
  • riquisimo@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Don’t let them pee on your Cheerios. Purple is a color, just like magenta, pink, cyan, brown, and all the other “not in the rainbow/ROYGBIV” colors.

    Gatekeeping colors, I tell ya. Don’t let 'em get you burnt sienna with rage.

    source
• captainlezbian@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  I believe it’s indigo not purple there.

  source

  • deo@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Correct. Initially, Newton didn’t have indigo in his list for the visible spectrum, but he wanted seven colors instead of six because it matched up with the number of notes in music (and because he liked the number). So at some point there was discussion of removing indigo entirely because it’s kinda just a shade between blue and violet that the human eye just isn’t as good at distinguishing compared to the other colors. But the neat thing is that what people back in Newton’s time called blue and indigo is more akin to what we today call cyan and blue (they know this by looking at his labeled drawings of the light scattered by prisims). Now the spectral colors are: red, orange, yellow, green, cyan, blue, and violet.

    source