756
Poetry (lemmy.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] mushroommunk@lemmy.today 83 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Uhhh, that's not really how we define those terms. They aren't blue just because they're doppler shifted. The rose is still red. It's still reflecting those wavelengths.

Maybe this slight edit is more accurate:
Roses are red
But might appear blue
Depending on their velocity relative to you

And yes, I am invited to parties

[-] starik@lemmy.today 42 points 19 hours ago

Mushroomunk at parties

[-] notabot@piefed.social 34 points 21 hours ago

Regardless of your status at parties, I actually prefer your wording, it seems to scan a little more easily.

[-] FundMECFS@quokk.au 11 points 18 hours ago

Let me outunfun you.

Roses are multi colours. There are many white species of rose.

[-] Deconceptualist@leminal.space 9 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

Oh we can spoil it further.

Roses aren't inherently any color. Color is a perceptual phenomenon created in your mind based on which cone cells are triggered in what quantity and how your brain interprets the signal. If you're red-green colorblind, they might legitimately appear grey in normal sunlight.

Also, at least where I live (and with normal vision and sunlight conditions), violets appear majority white, sometimes yellow, and once in a while actually violet -- but never what I'd call blue 🤷

[-] mushroommunk@lemmy.today 1 points 16 hours ago

I did think about going that way, how blue roses are the one color we really don't have even yet.

[-] Peanutbjelly@sopuli.xyz 8 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

I'm even more fun at parties.

I think we have a little more freedom around where we label colours, as all existing colours are just an active bounding relative to our usually-semi-aligned receptors. Someone who can't see blue could call something blue because others see it as blue, but it's technically still accurate to bound and define strictly from their style of receptors, we just appreciate cohesion in our heuristics due to the nature of our social way of being.

Perceiving something temporarily as a different colour due to the changing environment also altering our internal representation does not make it inaccurate to temporarily alter which made up words appropriately describe the made up boundings around an assumed relationship our internal model representation of wavelengths share with each other, regardless of whether surface contact changing the reflected wavelengths, or a doppler shift giving a temporary relative change in experience or classification.

Also see: why language is more suggestions than law, due to the valid growth of language happening simultaneously in myriad eco-niches with different salience or needs which may alter the 'proper' way of communication specifically within that eco-niche, or in relative shape to other locales. Especially when dealing with preference or style over function, but even bias for 'function' can have a proper local-niche optimization over 'improper' models despite 'proper' local models having functional conflict with broader models. meaning we need better ways to align while diversifying without enforcing the most large and salient local collective preference as law.

Also a lot of our experience is relative or confabulatory in ways that we should recognize before rejecting other localization of experience. recognizing how we handle language at multiple simultaneous scales crafted around-and-for myriad locally/generally salient settings. Unfortunately this becomes difficult to communicate when a politician tells all the people seeing red flowers that the person in a different context seeing the blue flower is just 'wrong,' while the rest are 'correct,' even though the same people with the same logic would argue differently if positions were reversed. This silly hypothetical is the same kind of issue as conveyed around 'the double empathy problem' as a broader systems mechanic, for different boundings on building logic vs model growth purely through passive socialized affirmation, or the same vulnerability to sycophantic delusion you see with "AI" psychosis, but due to a sycophantic group rather than an LLM.

Reality is just weird and dumb, and our existing systems kind of a gauge around what is actively useful as we grow ourselves into new shapes going forward. We definitely need to be wary of socializing strict binaries around local relative confabulatory structures or preferences. Ergo: the rose can be blue, even if that's not permanently useful outside of a strict communication around a personal position and experience. We can recognize the paradox from observer states with both confabulated classifications simultaneously, with both being true and neither being wrong, dependent on the acceptance of both states as valid experiences.

[-] degen@midwest.social 3 points 16 hours ago

Question: if you spin fast enough, will everything redshift around you?

I mean sure, velocity is still normal relative to the photons traveling perpendicular but what if you, like, look to the side?

[-] mushroommunk@lemmy.today 5 points 16 hours ago

That feels like an xkcd question. How fast do you have to spin to color shift things? I have no idea how the math actually works out

this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2026
756 points (99.6% liked)

Science Memes

21106 readers
1611 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS