this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
769 points (98.0% liked)

Science Memes

10637 readers
2569 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] halykthered@lemmy.ml 155 points 4 days ago (2 children)
[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 30 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I appreciate the skittles reference

[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 21 points 4 days ago (2 children)

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?

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 24 points 4 days ago (2 children)

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

[–] riquisimo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 3 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.

[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 25 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (8 children)

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.

Like binaural beats for the eyes?

[–] exasperation@lemm.ee 18 points 4 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] general_kitten@sopuli.xyz 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

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.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Normalized-spectral-sensitivity-of-retinal-rod-and-cone-cells_fig7_265155524

[–] AEsheron@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

There is evidence to show that violet does actually weakly activates red cones too. This is because the violet light starts creeping up to double the frequency of the lower end of the red sensitivity, and so it can actually successfully activate it very weakly. There are other factors that can lessen or even fully negate that effect though, it's all kind of fuzzy.

[–] JayDee@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 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?

[–] pancakes@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 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.

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

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?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I believe it’s indigo not purple there.

[–] deo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 77 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

This feels like a case where botanical science should just have picked a different name. If you invalidate everything people think of as a berry and then tell them a dozen things that are clearly not berries are, in fact, berries, you're just making the word berry meaningless.

Berry means a tiny, usually sweet, fruit-like growth from a plant. The kind that is usually picked in bunches. The kind that you use to make smoothies. That's a berry.

Botany did us all a disservice by choosing the word "berry" to mean "a specific thing which invalidates everything you think is a berry." Just call that plant structure something in Latin, ffs.

[–] CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.

[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Knowledge is knowing the common definition of fruit doesn't include tomato.

[–] JayObey711@lemmy.world 27 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Well, cooking terms and botany terms are not the same. Any non reproductive part of a plant is vegetable. But in cooking we have a completely different idea of what vegetables are.

This really doesn't matter because most people are not botanists and those who are probably know the terms. The only people that care are quirky internet people with debates about weather or not potato salad should be considered a cake or something.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 3 points 3 days ago

"Weather" is a nice ultimate touch

[–] BossDj@lemm.ee 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

They did. It's Baca. Which means berry. Or maybe cow. Naming stuff is hard

[–] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Naming would be easier if we collectively review the names every few years and retire the BS.

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 80 points 4 days ago (2 children)

That's because the scientific definition of berries has little in common with the colloquial one. That doesn't make either wrong, they are just used in different contexts

[–] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 38 points 4 days ago (4 children)

We really should rename botanical berries to something else.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Nougat@fedia.io 18 points 4 days ago

Botanical vs culinary.

[–] vale@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

wait until you hear about vegetables

[–] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 days ago

Just happened last week.

Me: "I don't even want to get started about vegetables. We'll go into it for hours."

Them: "Wait what?"

(Proceeds to go into a long conversation for hours)

[–] TotalFat@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Sometimes you feel like a peanut is not a nut!

Sometimes you don't!

[–] Comment105@lemm.ee 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I've willfully disregarded botanical terminology every since I learned it.

Bad practice, picking generic terms to define differently.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 15 points 4 days ago (2 children)

A berry is a watery, often sweet fruit under 4cm

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 21 points 4 days ago (4 children)

That is the colloquial definition. The scientific definition of a berry differs a bit.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Rusty@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

They said often sweet, not...

I can't think of something disgusting to properly describe how much I hate cherry tomatoes.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago

Ah! A person of rare and refined taste!

[–] Muscle_Meteor@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] WhyFlip@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

TIL, wow. I mean, to be fair, "berry" is in the damn name, so I never questioned it.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

These are lies! This is pumpkin propaganda, spread by the spirit of Halloween.

[–] TheAmishMan@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Pumpkin pie also rarely is made with pumpkin, it's usually squash

[–] toast@retrolemmy.com 41 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Pumpkin pie is always made with squash. Occasionally, those squash are pumpkins

[–] sconniecrow@midwest.social 19 points 4 days ago

Pumpkin is a squash

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago

Having made pumpkin pies for decades, this is true. Pumpkin is a squash.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›