New glasses - like reading lines in a fun house mirror

Discussion in 'Glasses' started by BobW, Sep 28, 2004.

  1. BobW

    Mark A Guest

    The differences are within the margin of error of an eye exam. These
    differences can be caused by the OD, your responses to the questions from
    the OD (which is better, A or B), or how tired your eyes are at any given
    moment.
     
    Mark A, Oct 2, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. BobW

    Otis Brown Guest

    In engineering-science you put your statement
    to the test.

    In the OD-World you think of endless reasons
    to avoid facing true-facts concerning the
    dynamic behavior of the natural eye.

    You insist that the natural eye does not
    go "down" (in terms of measured refractive status)
    and I do mean ALL natural eyes.

    I take a population of natural eyes and
    measure the refractive status of all of them.

    That forms a gaussian distribution of refractive
    states for the natural eye.

    Now I test your null-hypothesis that the natural
    eye does not "change" from a forced change in
    the average visual enviroment.

    The forced change is -0.8 diopters.

    If you thesis is correct, then no refractive change
    will develop for the test group, relative to the
    control group,

    i.e.,

    Refractive status = Heredity or genetics.

    In fact I agree to a genetic COMPONET in the
    equation for the eye's refractive status, thus
    "genetics" explains little. i.e.,

    Refraction = Offset + Accommodation + Step [1- e^ (-t/TAU)]

    When this test is conducted, the refractive status
    of the test group change by the approximate
    value of the imposed step-change in the accommodation
    system.

    For the e ^ (t/TAU) function, the correlation coefficient
    is 0.97.

    By your insistance, stated without ANY proof, your
    correlation coefficient is 0.0 diopters.

    I think we have a serious scientific (not medical) problem
    here, in that you never allow your concept:

    Focus = Genetics

    to ever be tested -- because you don't like
    the consequences of understanding the scientific
    fact that the natural eye CONTROLS its
    refractive state to its average visual enviroment.

    Q. E. D.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    Otis Brown, Oct 2, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. BobW

    Dr Judy Guest

    Kindly provide some scientific evidence that what you call "staircase
    myopia" exists.

    Dr Judy
     
    Dr Judy, Oct 2, 2004
    #23
  4. BobW

    Dr Judy Guest

    Is this another one of your "thought experiments" ie what you think might
    happen if you actually did the experiment? If so, please refrain from
    stating your speculations is a form that sounds like you actually did
    something and got results.

    If you actually did the study, please post the publication date and journal,
    so we can read the details.

    Dr Judy
     
    Dr Judy, Oct 2, 2004
    #24
  5. BobW

    BobW Guest

    I got the glasses with the new prescription yesterday, 2nd Sept and have no
    problem whatsoever!
    Don't know why what I'm told is a very small change makes all the
    difference. No wavy lines,
    no sloping of planes, no up and down or down and out slanting. Just perfect!
    Thanks all for your most interesting and educational comments over the last
    several days.

    rgds/Bob
     
    BobW, Oct 3, 2004
    #25
  6. Misleading and contrary to fact. The "OD-World" agrees with the "MD-World"
    It has been found since years that a ball of Iron is less quick to
    fall on the earth than the same ball of Aluminum.

    It has been found that Galileo and Newton were wrong.

    Nobody can explain this strange phenomenon, but the experiment is
    being repeated since many years: a ball of Iron gets to earth less
    quickly than a ball of Aluminum (same shape of ball, except the weight
    of course due to difference in the specific mass).


    So what?
     
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Oct 3, 2004
    #26
  7. BobW

    Tom Malcolm Guest

    I got new glasses a few days ago.
    Here's my advice:
    1) NEVER let anyone test your eyes when they have
    dialated your eyes - or have bright or dark rooms or
    have put any chemicals in your eyes. Get your vision
    numbers tested BEFORE they do any of the above.

    2) If you have astigmatism,
    Never respond to the question - which is more clear -
    A or B - instead respond with the one that looks better
    to you - on a small line, those with astig will see double
    images with perfect correction sometimes - so go for
    the best comprimise beween distortion, ghost images,
    and crystal clearness - that's best - rather than what
    makes the sharpest lines.
     
    Tom Malcolm, Oct 6, 2004
    #27
  8. BobW

    John Perry Guest

    I'd expect the ball of iron to fall quicker assuming the balls had equal
    smoothness. Unless of course the balls were falling in a vacuum, in
    which case they would both fall at the same velocity.
     
    John Perry, Oct 6, 2004
    #28
  9. BobW

    Guest Guest


    Wrong Mike, the last one has cleared his vision by training at the zoo while
    a monkey is flying like a famous pilot in front of him holding a banana
    shaped Snellen chart.

    --
    Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

    I declare that Otis idea about preventing myopia in humans must be
    destroyed.

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
     
    Guest, Oct 6, 2004
    #29
  10. Let's see.. if they fall at the same rate in vacuum, then that means

    I was not aware of the grendeur of your stupidity.

    This is a scientific experiment, replicated many times, but kept secret.

    A ball of Iron and a ball of Aluminium DO NOT fall on earth in the same time.

    The Aluminium is a little bit faster.

    To notice this you need a long distance.

    Not few meters only.

    The difference is small.

    But shatters all the theory of gravitation.

    Search on the Internet.
     
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Oct 7, 2004
    #30
  11. BobW

    andrew Judd Guest

    For all practical purposes, when in the Earth's gravitational
    field,
    a feather and an anvil fall at the same speed in a vacuum. I posted
    the article
    with the "feather" and "anvil" and I also noted that in a very large
    field of
    gravitational force this isn't true.

    However, the reason for the change of acceleration speed in
    massive
    gravitational fields is not due to the mass of the smaller falling
    object
    but more it's mass distribution. In an incredibly massive
    gravitational
    field, the difference between outer radius and center of mass can
    actually
    affect the amount of gravitational force applied to different areas of
    the
    object. In the field of a black hole as an anvil approached the
    event
    horizon, it would be experiencing differences of force so great as to
    stretch
    the anvil out into an object thinner than a needle but extremely long
    (well
    actually before it got that thin, it would melt from the extreme
    friction
    caused internally by theis stretching).

    When dealing with objects on a planetary or solar scale, these
    objects have
    such wide mass distributions that we can no longer simulate them
    EXACTLY as
    point masses. However, even with a point mass simulation, we do
    fairly well.
    With a feather and anvil, I think it'd be nearly impossible to tell
    the
    difference in acceleration without a field 1000-10000 times stronger
    than
    Earth's.
     
    andrew Judd, Oct 8, 2004
    #31
  12. BobW

    The Real Bev Guest

    Does it mean anything useful if #1 and #2 are equally bad but in
    different ways? I've NEVER had one of these tests where an end result
    was in any way "good".

    Mostly they ask "Which is better?" which leads to a more subjective
    intgerpretation.
    Or somebody who figures that an accurate and detailed answer is in some
    way important to the examiner.
     
    The Real Bev, Oct 8, 2004
    #32
  13. I see the great pompous Rishi seems to believe he knows better than
    Search better your document is from 1964, I am talking of a discovery
    of the last 20 years.

    Then, you have to imagine long distances, not few meters.


    I am puzzled by your stupidity.
     
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Oct 8, 2004
    #33
  14. BobW

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Friends,

    Subject: At least get the Galileo's statement correctly

    Galileo's argument was that IN A VACUUM a cannon ball
    and a feather would fall at the same accellerated rate.

    The Scholactics argued that because a cannon ball and
    feather DID NOT FALL at the same rate -- Galileo
    was proven to be no only inaccurate but
    totally wong in concept.

    The Scholastics could not "conceptualze" the
    concept of a "vacuum" and therefore could
    not understand Galileo's argument.

    We have the same type of argument going on
    here were the ODs can not conceptualize
    the natural eye as "dynamic" and
    therefore proclaim that the concept
    of the dynamic eye is wrong because
    a big-old box camera could not possibly
    change its refractive status if the
    visual-environment is moved in a
    negative direction.

    Go figure!

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    Otis Brown, Oct 9, 2004
    #34
  15. The Scholastics could not "conceptualze" the
    It seems that either in vacuum a ball of Iron is slower than a ball of
    Aluminium, in falling on Earth from a very high distance.
     
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Oct 9, 2004
    #35
    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.