Using the optical antenna construction that is the basis for this work it is seen that the retina is sensitive to only three wavelengths: a.) the actual long wavelength limit of visual response (i.e., red) defined by cone-cone appositional distance in the fovea, b.) a geometrical, exact mid-band wavelength (i.e., green) defined by cone-rod appositions at 7-8 degrees of retinal angle, and c.) the actual short wavelength limit (i.e., blue) of visual response defined by rod-rod appositional distance. We define these three wavelengths as the “primary wavelengths”usually designated as “RGB”. Most importantly, through variation of antenna density, the three peaks thus formed are sensitive to levels of BRIGHTNESS for each wavelength and not to variablity of wavelength as is usually assumed. Taken together these retinal characteristics validate the theory of color vision of Edwin Land that must be studied to understand the significance of this retinal construction. For example, full color (as opposed to the three”primary RGB wavelengths) is synthesized by the eye obtaining a ratio of brightnesses on either side of the geometric mid-band point exactly as Land predicted.
I have attempted to show that this retinal construction and the new view of vision that follows explains so much that has been left unexplained in vision science. Wald’s experimental finding of a “blue blind” all-cone fova is one example…and I have pointed out many more examples in the text of the paper.
I would like (but will probably not see!) anyone criticizing the work to argue from the above fundamental construction and the extensive agreement with the characterisitcs of the vision process that I claim follow from it. It is not constructuve to argue that becuase I (apparently) did not read this or that paper the entire premise is invalid!