Experimenting with reading glasses?

Discussion in 'Glasses' started by gerry.acheman, Nov 16, 2006.

  1. What are the risks of experimentation with various lenses for
    reading or computer glasses?

    How about correcting one eye and removing the lens from in front of
    the other?

    Can using a too powerful lens only for reading potentially damage
    your eye? I am enjoying the clarity of vision.

    All that can be viewed as generally speaking.

    Thanks in advance.
     
    gerry.acheman, Nov 16, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. gerry.acheman

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Gerry,

    The standard theory of the eye, Donders-Helmholtz
    maintains that a lens has NO EFFECT on the
    eyes refractive STATE -- ever.

    This is the majority-opinion of the optometrists
    posting on sci.med.vision.

    For that reason, using a simple magnifing
    glass for reading should not be a problem.

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Nov 16, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. So I can effectively upgrade the size of my monitor for the cost of
    reading glasses. Wow.
     
    gerry.acheman, Nov 16, 2006
    #3
  4. gerry.acheman

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    I believe that the NATURAL EYE, with NATURAL REFRACTIVE
    STATES, will either respond to an applied -3 diopter lens -- or
    it will not.

    But please use the term "refractive STATE", and use
    the standard OBJECTIVE measurement of retionoscope
    and supporting technique.

    So we place a -3 diopter lens on the natural eye, and
    look for a time-constant response -- indication
    that the natural eye is a sophisticated, and
    dynamic system.

    Or look for your verification, that no change in
    refractive STATE will occur for the eye with
    a -3 diopter lens on it.

    That is how you determime if a population of
    natural eyes are dynamic or not.

    Reference:


    Mike> Of course, it's only the ODs. The ophthalmologists, vision
    researchers, and
    neurophysiologists all believe that the eye changes by 63% toward the
    new
    step-input within 100 days. Right?

    No, Mike, you do NOT believe or expect that the natural
    eye will respond to this type of step-input. Just you
    and a percentage of majority-opinion ODs refuse to
    believe that the natural eye will show this type of
    response.

    But this issue IS NOT MEDICAL.

    It is rather work to determine if the predictions
    of the Donders-Helmholtz theory are accurate
    in a pure-scientific sense -- or not.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Nov 16, 2006
    #4
  5. gerry.acheman

    Simon Dean Guest

    Not unless you study religion in israel my young mike!

    You have so much to learn.

    :p

    Cya
    Simon
     
    Simon Dean, Nov 16, 2006
    #5
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.