• @chuckleslord
    link
    English
    116 hours 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?

    • @captainlezbian
      link
      English
      214 minutes ago

      I believe it’s indigo not purple there.

    • @shneancy
      link
      English
      116 hours ago

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

      • @chuckleslord
        link
        English
        12
        edit-2
        6 hours 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.

        • @essteeyou
          link
          English
          3
          edit-2
          2 hours 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
            link
            English
            12 hours 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
              link
              English
              12 hours 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”

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          106 hours 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            3
            edit-2
            5 hours 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.

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

            • @AEsheron
              link
              English
              12 hours 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.