On Aug 13, 1:09 am, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > If they interacted with other photons they wouldn't travel in straight > lines and we could form images.
The images aren't photons though. We can see images clearly in our imagination without anything physically traveling anywhere, as far as I know. Also, the molecules that make up the air don't travel in a straight line, yet we are able to hear sound clearly. > > Why do they seem to be able to interact with our rod and cone cells? > > They have charged particles in them, e.g. electrons. True, but why doesn't the millions of odd electron interactions within the cell cancel out the effect of the straightness of the photon paths? I would think that the retina would have to be an immaculate crystalline surface rather than a lumpy community of breathing protein sacs in order to retain the integrity of the photon pattern. If the visual cortex can compensate for all of that, as well as movements of the eyeball and head, it seems like it could read through the patterns of photon interactions just as our auditory nerve hears through the acoustic collisions of charged particles as they interact and interfere. I'm not arguing against optics, and I can see that density of materials can account for the relative lack of distortion of image through hundreds of miles of atmosphere yet be completely blocked by a nanometers-thin sheet of gold leaf, but I still think that our explanation of photon projectiles traveling millions of miles through space into our retina really doesn't hold water. It would seem that all of the gas and water vapor in the atmosphere would add up to be one thin sheet of metal if flattened, so that if each atmospheric electron absorbed one or more photons of energy, I would expect some kind of elaborate moire pattern where the cumulative distribution of molecular shadows would end up causing random blotches of darkness to appear on a clear sunny day. In order to do what the retina does, it seems to me that the photons would have to fill in these miles long molecular shadows and reconstruct the straight line path that could have been there had not the layers of gas gotten in the way. I think if all that were necessary to see an image were photons, then we would be able to see out of our skin. We would feel light in images. Light is just too unlike any kind of physical substance. It makes no sense for it to be invisible as a ray in a vacuum, for it not to exist independently as a substance. If it were a particle, it should behave in some macrocosmic, commonsense way like other phenomena composed of particles and not like a phantom non-substance that is the invisible source of all vision. You can't see light, you can only see something that is illuminated, and since we can imagine illumination without having photons input, it makes sense that illumination is a condition that occurs within our nervous system's experience, yet is common to matter that is being illuminated as well. The addition of endless torrents of massless, chargeless, intangibles filling the universe just to connect one self-illuminating material object to another through a vacuum seems superfluous. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.