An analysis of natural accommodation.

An Accommodation Design Discussion.

Discussion by R. Izaac and O. Brown


People don's care how much you know, until they know how much
you care ... about them.

Zig Ziglar

Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little
falls into lazy habits of thinking.

Albert Einstein


Technical analysis of the power of the natural eye as the
visual enviroment is changed from 0.0 diopters to -1.0 diopters.

For this analysis long-term refractive status is considered
"frozen" as per the the Donders-Helmholtz "passive" theory.

The fact that the natural eye conrols its long-term
refractive state (according to the e ^ (-t/TAU) will be reviewed
in a later analysis.




From: R. Izaac"


Otis> But it take strong PERSONAL mostivation to "un-do" the
effect of BOTH a "near" average visual enviroment -- made
"nearer" by a minus lens.

Izaac> Otis, good you answered my question.

Izaac> But you are absulutly wrong. The minus lens does not bring
the visual environment closer.

Otis> Wow! I never though you would say something like that!
Simple optics will tell you that:

1. Parallel rays of light are from infininty.

2. Rays of light from a "near" object at 1 meter are diverging.

3. In an eye with a refractive state of 0.0 diopters, parallel
rays of light will be focused on the retina.
(Accommodation-lens is a continuous process -- in continuous
motion around the optical dead band. This system is
controlled by micro-blur sensed at the surface of the
retina. (Lets give the eye a power of 60 diopters for this
short-term analysis.)

4. When an object is moved from infinity (parallel rays) to 1
meter -- to stay in focus, the retina senses blur, and
changes the position (or shape) of the lens by +1 diopter.
(Equal an oposite necessary change.) The eye's power
increases to 61 diopters. The image is in focus on the
retina, with the same "dither" in the lens of the natural
eye. No "stress" is involved -- this is a natural process.

5. If you take a minus 1 diopter lens, and place it in front of
this eye, the rays of light are diverging, as though the
object (at infinity) is now OPTICALLY at -1 diopter. Since
the eye uses micro-blur sensed at the surface of the retina,
the lens-position must chaange by +1 diopter. The total
power of the natural eye is now +61 dioters. (Necessarily.)

6. The two situations are equivalent. The eye does not know if
the object is real or "virtual". The action of the
accommdation SYSTEM is identical.


Izaac> The fact is that the minus lens reduces the accomodative
effort, IT DOES NOT INCREASE IT!!!

Otis> I said nothing at all about "effort". You believe something
that is not proven. The above equation is correct, and the
total power must change as stated, or you would have
appreciable blur (detected by the person) at the surface of
the retina. This is engineering -- not "medicine".

Izaac> The stronger the power the the lesser the accomodative
effort needed at near.

Otis> I said that the lens would change "position". The important
fact is that "control" micro-blur detection at the surface
of the retina, and the fact the the lens is in continuous
motion.

Izaac> The greater the vertex distance, the lesser the
accomodative effort needed at near.

Otis> If you wish. I never said "effort". There is only the
necessary change in the total power of the eye from 60 to 61
diopters. It is not necessary to use "words" other than to
state that the eye MUST change its total power to maintain
focal control. In fact, this could be because both shape
AND POSITION change to achieve this final result. This is a
very dynamic process.

Izaac> An emetrope will need to excert a greater amount of
accomodation when compared to a -10.00 myope (wearing his
glasses), both reading at the same distance.

Otis> We have not got to that point yet. Do you agree that the
natural eye -- described above -- behaves as stated?

Otis> PLEASE -- this is a "no-fault" argument. The men who are
working with the plus -- just prefer that they keep their
distant vision -- and will "pay the price" of using a plus
lens for ALL CLOSE WORK.

Otis> No one could force them to do this. They had to "figure it
out" themselves. Very bright guys indeed.

Izaac> I really think that your "patience" have the right to the
truth (see above) so that they can go ahead and figure it
out for themselves.

Otis> What I have stated above is a good analysis of the behavior
of the natural accommodation system (for an "design"
perspective). I see no error in the above tecnical analysis
of how the natural controls the lens (by micro-blur at the
surface of the retina. This design would work as a
practical matter. The "Donders-Helmholtz" passive
accommodation model would not work as a practical
engineering-design matter.


Otis> Why should you be interested?

Izzac> Why should I not be interested?

Izaac> Legal problems -- none, I can do as I please here, No
legistlation, no registration here in singapore for
optometry.

Otis> The OD Board would call you in and "inquire" as to your
"advocacy". If you attempted to use the "plus" and the
parents did not understand the reason for it you would
"have problems", witness the RM-Blasts on sci.med.vision.
The is exactly the problem described by Jacob Raphelson.

Izaac> Insuarance -- Don't need it, We are paid directly by the
patient.

Otis> Insurance about what?

Izaac> Lots of Myopes, one ad in the papers will bring in
thousands of "prevention minded friends"

Otis> Given all the "blasts" against the "dynamic eye" concept, I
am certain your other ODs on this site would fire "blasts"
against you. It does not take much to intimidate an OD
AGAIST involvement with the concept of prevention on the
threshold (i.e., 20/40 or better).

Izaac> I can retire in a year. Oh please, please Otis, go prove
that your preventive method works, I really would like to
retire early.

Otis> Given all of the above, I do not see how you could be
involved in prevention -- in the restricted range that I
described. Some issues in your life -- you must make a
decision and choice on your own best judgment on
engineering-scientific facts.

Otis> Given that the person must see the results themselves, (and
your "blasts" against the concept) -- they just went ahead
and did it under their own "control". Done in that manner
the cost is very low.

Roland J. Izaac

 

Otis,

A couple of quick things:


1) I suppose the bar for "proof" should be lower for you than for
the rest of the scientific community because you want it to be? Seems
a little narcissistic and self-serving, don't you think?


2) In the wake of recent events (Aleve, Vioxx, Celebrex, Tysabri,
etc.) I'm reminded that scientific hypotheses should be held to the
highest of scrutiny before being labeled as "safe," "accurate,"
"state-of-the-art," or "conventional wisdom." Reach for it, Mister.
It's up there for you to surmount.


Time and time again, you eagerly and blithely foist your theories on
unsuspecting folks who stop by S.M.V. looking for help. The general
public must rely on the kindly doctors to alert them to your lack of
credentials, potential for harm, and untested hypotheses.


Look, Otis, I'll allow for the possibility that all of the eye doctors
on this NG are avaricious, self-serving monsters who have a lock on a
huge chunk of change that comes from doing things "their" way. They
may be a member of the vast ocular conspiracy that defends its wealth
by maintaining the status quo. All of this may be true (though I
don't think it is).


But you still come across as a petulant, Napoleonic idiot and a
dottering, old fool.


The bar for proving your theories is the same as it is for all others.
Go prove your theories (yes, the old fashioned way: proper testing,
accurate data, peer-review) and -- if there's a kernel of truth in
what you spout -- converts will be lining up to describe and prescribe
your methods, you'll be rich, and you'll be right up there with
Bagolini, Helmholz, Donders, Schirmer, Robert A. Strabismus, and all
the other paragons whose names are memorialized in the annals of
vision care.


Until then, you're an intellectually inadequate troll . . . who
creates risk for unsuspecting, often desperate, people seeking help.
"Engineer" in your signature expiates some of your guilt. It does
nothing to ameliorate the risk. Perhaps if your signature said, "I am
not a doctor. My theories are my own, have not been proved, and are
not shared by most in the medical community. Further, I am
pathologically unwilling to make any efforts to see my hypotheses
legitimately tested. Consult your doctor."


Neil

 

Dear Neil,

Given your knee-jerk response to my posting (you did this in
about 10 minutes.

1. You did not read any of it.

2. You did not do any "thinking"


Further:

Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little
falls into lazy habits of thinking.

Albert Einstein

I think Albert had you in mind -- as well as many of his
critics when he made this statement.

I am certain you are well-read about the eye as
a passive box-camera. Trouble is -- you
are not learning anything new.

But as always, enjoy are pleasant analysis
of the natural eye as a dynamic system.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

 

Dear Neil,

Also you did not delete this name:

Robert A. Strabismus

"Strabismus" is a condition -- not a person.

(Or at least not a "leader in the field")


Are you attempting to deceive people on this site with
that kind of reference?

If you don't know, (which I must assume) then you can't
be a professional in the field of vision research.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

 

Otis,

A couple of quick things:


1) I suppose the bar for "proof" should be lower for you than for
the rest of the scientific community because you want it to be? Seems
a little narcissistic and self-serving, don't you think?


2) In the wake of recent events (Aleve, Vioxx, Celebrex, Tysabri,
etc.) I'm reminded that scientific hypotheses should be held to the
highest of scrutiny before being labeled as "safe," "accurate,"
"state-of-the-art," or "conventional wisdom." Reach for it, Mister.
It's up there for you to surmount.


Time and time again, you eagerly and blithely foist your theories on
unsuspecting folks who stop by S.M.V. looking for help. The general
public must rely on the kindly doctors to alert them to your lack of
credentials, potential for harm, and untested hypotheses.


Look, Otis, I'll allow for the possibility that all of the eye doctors
on this NG are avaricious, self-serving monsters who have a lock on a
huge chunk of change that comes from doing things "their" way. They
may be a member of the vast ocular conspiracy that defends its wealth
by maintaining the status quo. All of this may be true (though I
don't think it is).


But you still come across as a petulant, Napoleonic idiot and a
dottering, old fool.


The bar for proving your theories is the same as it is for all others.
Go prove your theories (yes, the old fashioned way: proper testing,
accurate data, peer-review) and -- if there's a kernel of truth in
what you spout -- converts will be lining up to describe and prescribe
your methods, you'll be rich, and you'll be right up there with
Bagolini, Helmholz, Donders, Schirmer, Robert A. Strabismus, and all
the other paragons whose names are memorialized in the annals of
vision care.


Until then, you're an intellectually inadequate troll . . . who
creates risk for unsuspecting, often desperate, people seeking help.
"Engineer" in your signature expiates some of your guilt. It does
nothing to ameliorate the risk. Perhaps if your signature said, "I am
not a doctor. My theories are my own, have not been proved, and are
not shared by most in the medical community. Further, I am
pathologically unwilling to make any efforts to see my hypotheses
legitimately tested. Consult your doctor."


Neil

 

Keep posting, OB. You are truly your own worst enemy....

 

Dear Neil,

Why -- because you were deceptive about
the leading paragon "Robert A. Strabismum" -- and
now you can not admit you were intentionally deceptive?

Or do you insist there is such a man?

If I can't trust you on that detail -- how can I trust
you insistance that the natural eye is not
"dynamic".

Are you deceptive on that issue also?

Best,

Otis

 

To quote from my earlier post:

"Wait until you get to the book on esodeviations. You'll find out that
there really is no "Robert A. Strabismus." I was just being clever."

Otis, you're just an imbecile--no more, no less; therefore, as
always...

A couple of quick things:


1) I suppose the bar for "proof" should be lower for you than for
the rest of the scientific community because you want it to be? Seems
a little narcissistic and self-serving, don't you think?


2) In the wake of recent events (Aleve, Vioxx, Celebrex, Tysabri,
etc.) I'm reminded that scientific hypotheses should be held to the
highest of scrutiny before being labeled as "safe," "accurate,"
"state-of-the-art," or "conventional wisdom." Reach for it, Mister.
It's up there for you to surmount.


Time and time again, you eagerly and blithely foist your theories on
unsuspecting folks who stop by S.M.V. looking for help. The general
public must rely on the kindly doctors to alert them to your lack of
credentials, potential for harm, and untested hypotheses.


Look, Otis, I'll allow for the possibility that all of the eye doctors
on this NG are avaricious, self-serving monsters who have a lock on a
huge chunk of change that comes from doing things "their" way. They
may be a member of the vast ocular conspiracy that defends its wealth
by maintaining the status quo. All of this may be true (though I
don't think it is).


But you still come across as a petulant, Napoleonic idiot and a
dottering, old fool.


The bar for proving your theories is the same as it is for all others.
Go prove your theories (yes, the old fashioned way: proper testing,
accurate data, peer-review) and -- if there's a kernel of truth in
what you spout -- converts will be lining up to describe and prescribe
your methods, you'll be rich, and you'll be right up there with
Bagolini, Helmholz, Donders, Schirmer, Robert A. Strabismus, and all
the other paragons whose names are memorialized in the annals of
vision care.


Until then, you're an intellectually inadequate troll . . . who
creates risk for unsuspecting, often desperate, people seeking help.
"Engineer" in your signature expiates some of your guilt. It does
nothing to ameliorate the risk. Perhaps if your signature said, "I am
not a doctor. My theories are my own, have not been proved, and are
not shared by most in the medical community. Further, I am
pathologically unwilling to make any efforts to see my hypotheses
legitimately tested. Consult your doctor."


Neil

 

Your analysis does not include the change in vergence from the back of the
lens to the front of the cornea.
Tip:- Do the analysis with a minus -10.00 diopter lens at 13 mm from the
cornea with the object of regard at 30 cm. from the cornea. Forget your
model eye for a while. Just compare the vergence at the cornea for distance
viewing and the vergence at the cornea when looking at 30cm., both looking
through the lens. The difference between the two vergence would be the
accomodation required.

By the way, your analysis shows that the accomodation required at near for
an emetrope is equal to that of a myope. yet you also state that the minus
lens brings the visual environment closer. The two statements are not
compatible. Explain.

Roland J. Izaac

 

Otis Engineer is a zealot who advocates his "plus lens" prevention theory
without good reason. There is no scientific data to prove what he proposes.
He would ask that all myopes (=nearsighted persons) go around wearing plus
reading glasses in hopes that it will eventually reverse their
nearsightedness. Nevermind that the blurry distance vision that myopes
complain about is made worse by plus lenses.

If you are interested in Otis' approach, I have some other links that I have
provided for you below that will probably also interest you:

GET RICH QUICK
http://www.clickvolume.net
http://www.meetmark.com

HARD PENILE ERECTIONS USING NATURAL HERBS
http://www.herbaalex.com/panadex.htm

LOOK AND FEEL YOUNGER
http://www.youngeryounger.com

FIND A BEAUTIFUL RUSSIAN WIFE
http://www.russianladies.com

 

ROFLMAO

 

What scientific studies validate that this equation holds true for human
eyes?

Is this true for all human eyes? At all ages? What are the scientific
references that prove this?

Where did this equation come from? Who derived it?

 

The fact that no scientific studies exist, does not mean the thing is
impossible.

This is simple logic and it is quite outrageous that you being a
learned man do not understand that,

Perhaps you are an idiot?

 

Dear Rishi,
Subject: Engineering-SCIENCE studies

I separate OBJECTIVE scientific truth,
from the "cooked" medical truth of these
ODs.

The problem is that they believe they
are down "wonderful" things when the
put a minus lens on a person.

An the "equal truth" is that most people
"want" that instant sharpness -- and nothing
else.

"Bates" attemped to "object" but got
beaten down for his efforts.

I hope we can do true-preventive
work in the future -- and their
will be more respect for
the "second-opinion" concept.

Best,

Otis

 

Otis,

A couple of quick things:


1) I suppose the bar for "proof" should be lower for you than for
the rest of the scientific community because you want it to be? Seems
a little narcissistic and self-serving, don't you think?


2) In the wake of recent events (Aleve, Vioxx, Celebrex, Tysabri,
etc.) I'm reminded that scientific hypotheses should be held to the
highest of scrutiny before being labeled as "safe," "accurate,"
"state-of-the-art," or "conventional wisdom." Reach for it, Mister.
It's up there for you to surmount.


Time and time again, you eagerly and blithely foist your theories on
unsuspecting folks who stop by S.M.V. looking for help. The general
public must rely on the kindly doctors to alert them to your lack of
credentials, potential for harm, and untested hypotheses.


Look, Otis, I'll allow for the possibility that all of the eye doctors
on this NG are avaricious, self-serving monsters who have a lock on a
huge chunk of change that comes from doing things "their" way. They
may be a member of the vast ocular conspiracy that defends its wealth
by maintaining the status quo. All of this may be true (though I
don't think it is).


But you still come across as a petulant, Napoleonic idiot and a
dottering, old fool.


The bar for proving your theories is the same as it is for all others.
Go prove your theories (yes, the old fashioned way: proper testing,
accurate data, peer-review) and -- if there's a kernel of truth in
what you spout -- converts will be lining up to describe and prescribe
your methods, you'll be rich, and you'll be right up there with
Bagolini, Helmholz, Donders, Schirmer, Robert A. Strabismus, and all
the other paragons whose names are memorialized in the annals of
vision care.


Until then, you're an intellectually inadequate troll . . . who
creates risk for unsuspecting, often desperate, people seeking help.
"Engineer" in your signature expiates some of your guilt. It does
nothing to ameliorate the risk. Perhaps if your signature said, "I am
not a doctor. My theories are my own, have not been proved, and are
not shared by most in the medical community. Further, I am
pathologically unwilling to make any efforts to see my hypotheses
legitimately tested. Consult your doctor."


Neil

 

Please tell us which journals and textbooks publish your version of
"truth."

You just put off your glasses and see for yourself that after a little
bit of MENTAL REST you gain some level of visual acuity, better than
before.

Now, just this little experiment proves that all your theories are
deadly wrong.

Why don't you try?

Perhaps you are an idiot?

 

Rishi,

A couple of quick things:


1) I suppose the bar for "proof" should be lower for you than for
the rest of the scientific community because

you want it to be? Seems a little narcissistic and self-serving,
don't you think?


2) In the wake of recent events (Aleve, Vioxx, Celebrex, Tysabri,
etc.) I'm reminded that scientific hypotheses

should be held to the highest of scrutiny before being labeled as
"safe," "accurate," "state-of-the-art," or

"conventional wisdom." Reach for it, Mister. It's up there for you
to surmount.


Time and time again, you eagerly and blithely foist your theories on
unsuspecting folks who stop by S.M.V. looking for help. The general
public must rely on the kindly doctors to alert

them to your lack of credentials, potential for harm, and untested
hypotheses.


Look, Rishi, I'll allow for the possibility that all of the eye
doctors on this NG are avaricious, self-serving

monsters who have a lock on a huge chunk of change that comes from
doing things "their" way. They may be a member

of the vast ocular conspiracy that defends its wealth by maintaining
the status quo. All of this may be true

(though I don't think it is).


But you still come across as a petulant, Napoleonic idiot (although
Napoleon was French).


The bar for proving your theories is the same as it is for all others.
Go prove your theories (yes, the old

fashioned way: proper testing, accurate data, peer-review) and -- if
there's a kernel of truth in what you spout --

converts will be lining up to describe and prescribe your methods,
you'll be rich, and you'll be right up there with

Bagolini, Helmholz, Donders, Schirmer, Robert A. Strabismus, and all
the other paragons whose names are memorialized

in the annals of vision care.


Until then, you're an intellectually inadequate troll . . . who
creates risk for unsuspecting, often desperate,

people seeking help.


Neil

 

Having just been a part of bringing a biomedical engineering program
through the process of accreditation, I can say that the accreditation
process does not distinguish "engineering" studies from "medical" studies.
Inference is inference, period.

Scott

 

See, here's the problem, Best,Otis,Engineer (and your pertinacious and
contumacious little Italian friend): I think it's safe to infer from
this that bull$hit is also quite simply bull$hit.

Period.

Until you can lay some supporting scientific proof on the table, that
withstands scrutiny, you are just elocuting directly from your hoary
and ashen posterior. Par for the course.

So, again, at the risk of redundancy and as if to repeat myself . . .

Otis,

A couple of quick things:


1) I suppose the bar for "proof" should be lower for you than for
the rest of the scientific community because you want it to be? Seems
a little narcissistic and self-serving, don't you think?


2) In the wake of recent events (Aleve, Vioxx, Celebrex, Tysabri,
etc.) I'm reminded that scientific hypotheses should be held to the
highest of scrutiny before being labeled as "safe," "accurate,"
"state-of-the-art," or "conventional wisdom." Reach for it, Mister.
It's up there for you to surmount.


Time and time again, you eagerly and blithely foist your theories on
unsuspecting folks who stop by S.M.V. looking for help. The general
public must rely on the kindly doctors to alert them to your lack of
credentials, potential for harm, and untested hypotheses.


Look, Otis, I'll allow for the possibility that all of the eye doctors
on this NG are avaricious, self-serving monsters who have a lock on a
huge chunk of change that comes from doing things "their" way. They
may be a member of the vast ocular conspiracy that defends its wealth
by maintaining the status quo. All of this may be true (though I
don't think it is).


But you still come across as a petulant, Napoleonic idiot and a
dottering, old fool.


The bar for proving your theories is the same as it is for all others.
Go prove your theories (yes, the old fashioned way: proper testing,
accurate data, peer-review) and -- if there's a kernel of truth in
what you spout -- converts will be lining up to describe and prescribe
your methods, you'll be rich, and you'll be right up there with
Bagolini, Helmholz, Donders, Schirmer, Robert A. Strabismus, and all
the other paragons whose names are memorialized in the annals of
vision care.


Until then, you're an intellectually inadequate troll . . . who
creates risk for unsuspecting, often desperate, people seeking help.
"Engineer" in your signature expiates some of your guilt. It does
nothing to ameliorate the risk. Perhaps if your signature said, "I am
not a doctor. My theories are my own, have not been proved, and are
not shared by most in the medical community. Further, I am
pathologically unwilling to make any efforts to see my hypotheses
legitimately tested. Consult your doctor."


Neil

 

What a shame, Rishi...

He who lives by small sample sizes and anecdotal evidence dies by
small sample sizes and anecdotal evidence.

Thanks, Mike. We'll move on to the next theory, then....