Mum - This Border Collie is Ending Sentences With a Preposition!

I had one more thought on the whole eyeball-shrinking thing. I calculated (well some clever person on The Internet did) yesterday that the focal length of a lens shrinks in exact proportion to the radii of focus of the eye. I didn't bother with the variability of the refractive index of the lens. The RI of a substance describes how light is affected when it travels through that media- and is the relation between the speed of light in a vacuum - c - and the speed of light in the substance - v. So RI = c/v.

Now, for our diminutive heroes, the refractive index of their tiny lenses will depend on how they were shrunk. Discussion of these methods is obviously beyond my intelligence but I can see that, as the light is not shrunk and the matter in the lens is, there is distinct possibility that light travelling through a shrunken lens will have a speed lower than that of light in a full-sized lens. And this does indeed change the focal length not in proportion to the radii of curvature because it changes the refractive index. 

It could be even worse. Any mechanism we might develop to shrink things will probably involve some technique rooted in the mysterious and badly-behaved realms of Quantum Theory and other, as-yet-undiscovered physical theories - possibly manipulating mass after harnessing the power of The Higgs Boson - humour me - I know this is all tosh - like questioning the grammar of a talking dog. This might result in complete changes to the properties of the matter affected - transparency may be changed to opacity and we would not be able to see at all. Though if matter was affected to that extent I suspect that shrunken life might not be viable at all. What about the viscosity of the liquid in blood. Would the heart be unable to provide enough pressure to keep the blood flowing?

Enough of this rubbish. It's the weekend. Let's dance.