How the eye expands and contracts with the plus and minus lens.

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by otisbrown, Oct 5, 2006.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    There are people who insist that a minus has no effect
    on the refractive STATE of the natural eye.

    The scientific reality is that it does.

    Here are the animation graphics of that process.


    http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaPrimer.html

    And you wonder why you get stair-case myopia from the minus.

    Or does the majority-opinion deny the performance of the
    natural eye?

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Oct 5, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Let's hope others, unlike you, will actually read the link and
    understand it.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Oct 5, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    I wonder how long your mind will remain static,
    fixated on this box-camera concept (paradigm).

    The natural eye indeed does change its refractive STATE
    as demonstrated by Dr. Wildsoet.

    That is indeed the scientific second-opinion.

    Best,

    Otis

    =========
     
    otisbrown, Oct 5, 2006
    #3
  4. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Pot. Kettle.
    Oh, you think?
    Anybody who bothers to read the article will see that Wildsoet does not
    agree with YOUR concept of "second-opinion."

    Your monolithic mindset is truly amazing.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Oct 5, 2006
    #4
  5. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest

    Otis,

    you again demonstrate your idiosy.

    noone in this forum has used the term box-camera except you. perhap
    you read it in some old text somewhere and you think it sound demeaning
    so you choose to pin it's use on someone else-- so be it.

    and Christine did nothing except explain, using videos, what the
    concept of emmetropization in animals such as chickens is. you are
    apparently so enamored with the nice web video presentation that you
    take it to mean that the video constitutes proof of staircase myopia in
    humans. just how do you come to that conclusion einstein? not a very
    critical thinker are you?

    and i believe that dr. tyner is referring to the fact that
    emmetropization likely DOES occur in some form or other in human
    children but over what time frame is unclear. existing data suggests
    over a short period of childhood. you would have us believe that the
    human eye maintains its ability to change length throughout our entire
    lifetime. how come ultrasound measurements of the length of the human
    eye do not support your belief? do you think that if a person wears
    plus lenses their eyes will get shorter?

    so if I put together a nice web video that proves how foolish your
    concepts are will your finally believe me and go away to some other
    alternative medicine newsgroup?

    ????????????????????????????????????????????
     
    p.clarkii, Oct 6, 2006
    #5
  6. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    There are people who insist that shoes have no effect on the length of
    the foot. The scientific reality is that they do. In fact, common
    sense will tell you that wearing increasingly larger shoes will cause
    the feet to expand. Here are the animation graphics of that process:

    http://www.otisisms/feet/shoes/smellyPrimer.edu

    Notice how feet expand with use, expanding during the day and
    contracting at night.

    Or, do they wish to deny the performance of the natural foot?

    The shoe industry would have the public believe that larger is better.
    Of course, what can they do? If I were a shoe salesman, I would do
    exactly the same: provide the "instant fix." Studies of certain
    African tribes have proven that binding the feet tightly prevents
    growth, but the shoe industry has suppressed this knowledge.
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Oct 6, 2006
    #6
  7. otisbrown

    retinula Guest

    many people deny the dynamic nature of the foot. they have a box-shoe
    concept.
    i remember a story I once read by raphaelson blah blah blah blah blah

    =============
     
    retinula, Oct 7, 2006
    #7
  8. otisbrown

    A Lieberma Guest

    You got it backwards? Shouldn't it be "shoe box"? *cheshire grin*

    Allen
     
    A Lieberma, Oct 7, 2006
    #8
  9. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest

    ROFLMAO :)
     
    p.clarkii, Oct 7, 2006
    #9
  10. otisbrown

    Ann Guest

    Otis, what is a natural eye as opposed to any other sort of eye?

    Ann
     
    Ann, Oct 8, 2006
    #10
  11. otisbrown

    LarryDoc Guest

    Is there a forest beyond the trees?

    -LB
     
    LarryDoc, Oct 9, 2006
    #11
  12. otisbrown

    Dan Abel Guest


    I've known people with glass eyes. Of course, they have no vision at
    all in that eye.
     
    Dan Abel, Oct 9, 2006
    #12
  13. otisbrown

    g.gatti Guest

    hello people,
    I see you all are well, alive and kicking.


    god bless you and america
     
    g.gatti, Oct 9, 2006
    #13
  14. otisbrown

    Jan Guest

    schreef:
    No need to perform the "jail house rock" anymore?

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
     
    Jan, Oct 10, 2006
    #14
  15. otisbrown

    Ann Guest

    I've got a plastic one.. I have to say the minus lens in front of it
    doesn't do an awful lot of good!

    Ann
     
    Ann, Oct 10, 2006
    #15
  16. otisbrown

    g.gatti Guest

    Hallo Otis,
    how are you?
    I wanted to ask you a question:
    Nicole Kidman is here in Rome for her film FUR. I once leared that the
    beauty underwent LASIK surgery for her low myopia. But today she wears
    glasses with minus lenses. I have seen her interviewed on TV and it is
    clear her defect is worsening.

    Do you have any explanation about this phenomenon?

    Thank you
    rishi from italy
     
    g.gatti, Oct 14, 2006
    #16
  17. otisbrown

    Salmon Egg Guest

    Are you the same rishi who has been posting on sci.chem?

    Whether from LASIK or spectacles, correction with negative lens leading to
    progressive myopia. In any event, Ms Kidman has reached an age where there
    will not be much more progression.

    Bill
    -- Fermez le Bush
     
    Salmon Egg, Oct 14, 2006
    #17
  18. otisbrown

    g.gatti Guest

    is he from italy too?


    then why they did not choose to postpone the operation?
    should you advice a new operation or glasses, now?
     
    g.gatti, Oct 23, 2006
    #18
  19. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear "L",

    In general a "length" is an extrapolated measurement.

    You measure a refracive STATE with a retinoscope -- and
    infer a "distance"

    Just stick with the OBJECITVE measurement.

    And that is this.

    If you take a population of NATURAL EYES, and
    place a -3 diopter lens on them, then
    the NATURAL EYE with change its
    refractive STATE by grether-than -2 diopters
    inside one year.

    That is what happens OBJECTIVELY -- by
    direct scientific measurement -- as
    a NATURAL and necessary process.

    Are you insisting that the fundamental eye
    does not do this? Or do you agree that
    the natural eye WILL change its refractive STATE
    in this manner? Yes or no.

    This is not a medical issue, but pure scientific
    question. You should have no problem
    agreeing.


    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Oct 23, 2006
    #19
  20. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    I don't know what you mean by a natural eye. Is that "natural" as
    opposed to "artificial"?
    Invariably in all species? Even then it is not a necessary process,
    but an experimentally determined process.
    You have to prove that this is true for humans and under exactly which
    conditions. Can you prove this? Answer me: Yes or No.

    "L"
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Oct 23, 2006
    #20
    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.