• chuckleslord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      19 days ago

      Is it a skittles reference or is it a reference to purple not being an actual color and thus not a part of the rainbow?

        • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          31
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          19 days 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.

          Essentially, any time you see purple, you’re seeing two different frequencies of light that your mind interprets as a single frequency.

          • exasperation@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            19 days 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.

          • _NoName_@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            18 days ago

            Would this not disqualify any mixed color? We only have receptors for three colors, and if we’re arguing that 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 colors by that definition right?

          • shneancy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            19 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 studies calling those colours not real? Why not just colours resulting from mixing other colours like the artists have done since the invention of paint?

            • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              18 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.

              • shneancy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                18 days ago

                and that is why i didn’t say the same explanation, but similar

                both, in my opinion, suffer from the clickbait disease “YOU CAN’T SEE YELLOW 😱” (directly, because to see it you use two light receptors combined) “PURPLE DOESN’T EXIST 😱” (as a single wavelength colour because as opposed to the other colours of the rainbow it uses a combination of red and blue wavelengths)

                i don’t blame you for either of course, i’m just expressing my general annoyance with the phrasing of both science facts

          • pancakes@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            18 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.

          • essteeyou@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            19 days ago

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

            Edit: I guess not in a pure sense because it’s still two wavelengths of light. Perhaps a mantis shrimp can detect a totally different wavelength and sees it as “purple” or something.

            Now I’m thinking about how we don’t know how other humans interpret colors. Like what I see as red, you may see as blue. Ugh.

            • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              19 days 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.

              • essteeyou@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                19 days ago

                Perceiving it as a color seems more practical though. It’s not like we look at “red” and think “ah yes, a single wavelength of light”

        • riquisimo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          18 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.

        • deo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          18 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.

      • psud@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 days 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