Colors that Never Fade

We've all had that favorite shirt, that had it's color fade over time because of use, and being washed too many times. A painter knows that even the best paint used will fade over time as well. In fact, it has been discovered that ancient sculptures and buildings from the Greek and Roman Empires that still exist today, were once painted. But that paint has long since faded away.

True Colors of Ancient Greek and Roman Statues


But what if a fabric was invented that had the color designed into the very fibers so that the colors stayed vibrant without ever fading?


There is a branch of science known as biomimetics that studies design in nature and copies or implements it for the benefit of human technology.



Once such development is the study of the vibrant color in the feathers of many birds that never fade.





Colors are generated primarily by small changes in in feather structure.




Microscopic variations on the surface of a feather scatter light in such a way to reflect certain hues of color. And these surface variations never change as the bird ages.



Dr. Andrew Parnell of the University of Sheffield (Department of Physics and Astronomy notes: "If nature can assemble this materiel 'on the wing,' then we should be able to do it synthetically.."




Researchers are now in the process of trying to create material that mimic this discovery found in the feathers of birds, from nature.



This in turn many lead to paints that never fade, and fabrics that will never lose their color wash after wash.


I found this short bit of information quite intriguing and wanted to share here. It comes from a video in a series "Was it Designed."

Source info:
Was it Designed? Bird Colors that Never Fade

a reply to: EdgeofParadise

en.wikipedia.org...

There's Vantablack, made out of carbon nanotubes, which may only stand the test of time based on the strength of its arrays, but I'm not sure how close it would resemble a bird's feather in all actuality.

originally posted by: EdgeofParadise
I found this short bit of information quite intriguing and wanted to share here. It comes from a video in a series "Was it Designed."

Source info:
Was it Designed? Bird Colors that Never Fade

Jehovah's witnesses, the religion, is a source for your science post? Here's a better source:

Nature's unique way of controlling color explains why birds never go gray

I've got some old peacock feathers and I wondered why the colors never seemed to fade...now I have a pretty good idea why.

a reply to: EdgeofParadise

I wouldn't have much to contribute but new information
and interesting threads are why I like ATS.

Excellent thread SnF

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Cool story about the Peacock feathers. I used to pick 'em up when going to the zoo. They would always let them run around wild. Never saved any though.

As far as Jehovah's Witnesses and science, I guess you would be surprised at how many wonderfully brilliant and talented scientists are Jehovah's Witnesses. Many of them became convinced of a God in their various fields of study, and came to know him through Jehovah's people.

I know a few, and I know they humble me with their incredible knowledge about different fields of science. Very humble and unassuming people as well.

Just a very small example, in their own words...

Some Videos:
Yaroslav Dovhanych: A Zoologist Explains His Faith

Rajesh Kalaria: A Brain Researcher Explains His Faith

Davey Loos: A Biochemist Explains His Faith

Rocío Picado Herrero: A Chemistry Teacher Explains Her Faith

Monica Richardson: A Physician Explains Her Faith


Some written interviews:
Why I Believe the Bible​—A Nuclear Scientist Tells His Story

A Biochemist Explains Her Faith

A Scientist Changes His Views

Something Better than Gold

A Designer of Robots Explains his Faith

Science and the Bible Helped Me Find the Meaning of Life

Science Was My Religion


Just bringing this out because of your suggestion that if it is a Jehovah's Witness it's a bad source. Again, you would be surprised at how many brilliant scientists have become Jehovah's Witnesses. And they some some brilliant work they have produced for Society as well.

But I'll leave that for another time.

originally posted by: EdgeofParadise
As far as Jehovah's Witnesses and science, I guess you would be surprised at how many wonderfully brilliant and talented scientists are Jehovah's Witnesses...

I know a few, and I know they humble me with their incredible knowledge about different fields of science. Very humble and unassuming people as well.

You might be surprised to learn how unscientific your argument is. If I gave you the names of a handful of people who smoked a pack of cigarettes a day, who lived to be over 100 years old, would that be enough to convince you that cigarette smoking is safe? It shouldn't be enough because those people are statistical outliers and not representative of the population of smokers.

Likewise you're tying to use a logical fallacy of anecdotes by citing a few statistical outliers who are not representative of the population of Jehovah's witnesses, which as a religion overall has one of the lowest levels of higher education in colleges and universities of any religion because they actively discourage such higher education.

Just a very small example, in their own words...

Some Videos:
Yaroslav Dovhanych: A Zoologist Explains His Faith

My computer is perfectly capable of playing 99.9% of the videos posted on youtube, there's about 1 in 1000 with an odd format I can't play, but I can't play any of the videos on that Jehovah's witnesses site, one of the reasons I had to look for another source than you posted. This is what I see:



So I question the technical competence of Jehovah's as well as their scientific competence if they can't make videos that will play on my computer like youtube videos do.

I don't really need to play the videos though, since I can tell you these people are either not very good scientists or not very good Jehovah's witnesses, since that particular religion is in conflict with science in many respects, but one obvious example is evolution. Here is a more statistically based look at that religions lack of belief in evolution:

www.pewforum.org...

Just bringing this out because of your suggestion that if it is a Jehovah's Witness it's a bad source. Again, you would be surprised at how many brilliant scientists have become Jehovah's Witnesses.

Again, these people are either not very good scientists or not very good Jehovah's witnesses, they can't be very good at both. Like they can't be a good Jehovah's witness and also believe in the science of evolution. Also if they got their PhD's while they were Jehovah's witnesses they have gone against the teachings of the church, who says such higher education is a waste of time.

www.jwfacts.com...


They have valid concerns that if their adherents go to university and learn real science they will find out that evolution is accepted as scientific fact and that other aspects of their religion are incompatible with science.

This is some complete scientific illiteracy from the Jehovah's Witnesses website, related to the Noah's Ark myth which can be scientifically proven false in many ways:

wol.jw.org...

This is a scientific view of Noah's flood mythology:
The Global Flood of Noah

Watchtower interprets the Genesis account of a global flood literally, postulating that water covered the top of earth's highest mountains. This article addresses an array of evidence regarding whether it is possible that a global flood occurred 4,400 years ago...

So if those people you think are good scientists, then they don't believe non-scientific nonsense, and if they do believe non-scientific nonsense, then they aren't good scientists. They could be not very good at either science or believing in non-scientific nonsense, but they can't be good at both.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

There is no reason to post the videos from JW.ORG to YouTube. And I have had no problems playing any of the videos from JW.ORG on any devices I own, or have seen any problems. Yours is probably something wrong on your end somewhere.

As for the rest of your rant. It had not nothing to do with the OP. So is irrelevant to this thread.

a reply to: EdgeofParadise

It is actually quite relevant because of the undertone and narrative of the material cited. The video is one big leading question which is wanting the viewer to take away from it a very unscientific postulate that "It was designed by god" it is pushing this in a very subtle way and buying trust by quoting actual scientists and trying to sound like they know what they are talking about.

It is very interesting how nature and evolution has come up with structures that support observed colouring via scattering of white light, It is also not true that fading is purely a man made thing. There are many examples of creatures who, if exposed to light after death will bleach white etc.

A video presented as an interesting source of information which is pushing a non-scientific narrative with the ruse of sounding scientific is the whole point and purpose of that rant. You might think, "oh its innocent" but it is in my opinion not innocent at all. Hell... ask your friend for example if it is ok to trespass if you are doing gods work? I had a couple of JW's walk right into my home in the morning because i hadn't locked the door when I went and got the post. For people who often speak of being such high moral character... their feelings towards people who are maybe non-believers is one of frank disrespect in my experience.... so i ask... why would they respect scientific integrity either?

It is a long way of saying "Interesting, Your source is not a good source, there are better places to find information without the adage of "God made it all" It also demands logical integrity of the source. yes sometimes there are paradoxes, but those should be honestly addressed.

Color depends on context and your brain's interpretation of it.
What color are the spheres?

a reply to: EdgeofParadise

beautiful