Author Topic: Engineers, Pilots and Scientists - for True Prevention.  (Read 3327 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1738
Engineers, Pilots and Scientists - for True Prevention.
« on: February 10, 2013, 09:15:51 AM »
Subject:  I believe in science and facts - and TEACHING prevention to people who can do it.

I have NO desire to get into a "running battle" with a OD or MD.  I do not consider true-prevention, to be medical.

But I also believe in doing PREVENTION myself - if I can.  Most people simply will not take the time to learn, and make the commitment to wearing the plus for 9 months - to achieve a reasonable results.  There are many reasons for this, but most people can't make the logical connections.  We know that pilots (who don't quit), are successful, as per Brian Severson.  We know that Todd was successful.  But in EACH CASE, no one medical was involved.  That is how *I* see the future for this problem.  I have prepared a proposal, with the statistics, for your review and examination.

http://myopiafree.wordpress.com/book/

One day (year) in the far distant future, some wise people will actually IMPLEMENT this type of scientific study.  If you think this is fradulent, or "wrong" as science, please post your objections.  I would like to hear them.

Otis


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1738
Re: Engineers, Pilots and Scientists - for True Prevention.
« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2013, 10:28:19 AM »
Subject: Concepts in "Systems Engineering" and Software Design.

Here is how I think about the refractive STATES of the natural eye - and the
reasons that led me to this approach.

I had received a minus lens when I was young. It seemed that every time I went
to the OD - I got a stronger minus lens. I began to suspect that there was
something profoundly wrong with that minus lens - even though I had to agree
that it "worked" when my natural eyes had self-induced negative status of -1 and 20/40.

After a great deal of research, I realized that IN AN OFFICE the OD felt that he
HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO USE A STRONG MINUS - ON EVERYONE who had NORMAL NEGATIVE
STATUS.

I began to wonder - "why would they do that", and "don't they know that all
natural eyes are dynamic, and when you place them in long-term near, they always
change their refractive state in a negative direction?"

After even more time, I begin to think about ending the word, "nearsightedness",
and replacing it with the word, "negative STATE for the natural eye" - in the
same sense that the natural eye has a positive STATE, when working in an open
environment.

If you "forget" nearsightedness, and STOP attempting to dissect a eye, into all
its components (bottom up design), then perhaps you will begin to, "get the
concept."

That is what I "design", and from a "high perspective", that is what all
fundamental eyes are LIKE.

I would hope a "high minded" person could "think that way", and I believe that a
person who can "see it that way", could personally teach himself the concept,
and wear the plus (at 20/40 to 20/60) and slowly change his refractive STATE in a
positive direction. (i.e., and clear his Snellen to exceed the 20/40 line - and better.)

But the verification for this type of success, is in the plus study conducted by
Francis Young. Further, that change in refractive STATE (self-measured) is
indeed slow.

This is why I suggest that a person should have the education, and motivation to
make the effort - because it will take about nine months to clear your vision by
+1.0 diopters.  (By intensive wearing of a +2.5 diopter for all close work.)

This will never be easy, but if the person is very serious - it is possible.


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1738
Re: Engineers, Pilots and Scientists - for True Prevention.
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2013, 05:18:31 AM »
Subject:  Please remember this.

I am NEVER hostile toward a "Point-of-Sale" person.  It is just that he can not help me - if I need to clear my Snellen (change my refractive STATE) from -1.0 diopters to 0.0 diopters.  This "problem" has been confirmed many times - byt Prentice and Raphaelson - if you are careful in your scientific review.

Scientific prevntion is about EDUCATED empowerment, and great persistence - to work to get the 20/40 line clear, and to make the devoted effort to wear a plus for the nine months required to get that +1.0 diopter change in your own refractive STATE.

Offline johnlink

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
Re: Engineers, Pilots and Scientists - for True Prevention.
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2013, 01:24:31 PM »
...because it will take about nine months to clear your vision by
+1.0 diopters.  (By intensive wearing of a +2.5 diopter for all close work.)

This will never be easy, but if the person is very serious - it is possible.

Otis, do you think that one could make an improvement of one diopter every nine months? My current prescription for contact lenses is -3.25 in the left eye and -3.00-2.25x.010 in the right eye. At the rate you state above I would be able to eliminate my contacts in three or four years! Is that result to be expected if I use plus glasses for all close work?

John Link

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1738
Re: Engineers, Pilots and Scientists - for True Prevention.
« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2013, 03:49:56 AM »
Subject:  The "ray-trace" theory - we were taught in high school and in college.

The concept presented here seems to be "perfect science".  It is an "analysis protocol", a concept developed by Johan Kepler (yes, in 1610), and further expanded in 1865 by Helmholtz.  It is very easy to JUMP to the conclusion that a natural eye with a measured refractive STATE of -1.0 diopters - is an eye that is 'too long".  This is a tautology.  Yes, AFTER your natural eye responds to "long-term near" it CHANGES its refractive state - to a measured negative value.  In fact, in viewing this ray-trace presentation I began to ask, "... what would happen if you took an eye that was PERFECT, (refractive state of zero).  With "diverging light-rays" would this natural eye "... make itself longer".  Or perhaps the concept of "too long", was a presumption, based on VERY LIMITED DATA.  Here is the presentation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDehC_Txa1U&feature=player_embedded

If you begin asking the question of the dynamic eye, and its response to a minus lens - you get a different, and objective picture of an eye that is indeed "highly responsive to long-term near".  It then takes on a negative-state (avoid the assumption of, "too long"), and this negative STATE can be avoided its "early stage", by getting the natural eye to avoid "diverging light-rays", or "rays of light from long-term near".  Thus proof that they eye is responsive to 1) Diverging rays of light and 2) Long term near, are equivalent.  You prove the NATURAL eye's responsiveness to a -3 diopter lens (takes on negative state), and you prove (for the analytical intellectual) that long-term near creates negative status - for the same reason.  But it takes the ability to visualize the concept.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1738
Re: Engineers, Pilots and Scientists - for True Prevention.
« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2013, 04:21:36 AM »
Subject: I like scientific simplification and clarification.

The previous "ray trace" picture of the eye - is presented as "perfect, PROVEN science".  If you begin to point out the  "failed assumptions", that a naturel eye with a negative state is not PROVEN to be "too long", but rather can have a TEMPORARY negative status, that in a limited sense could be changed from a -1.0 diopter to +1/2 diopter, you are told you are a "ignorant in basic science" because you will not "buy into" the above ray-trace analysis.  The "trace-analysis" is correct, only if you assume the eye is "too long".  But it is always a "neat package", where a obvious, but wrong assumption is made.   If you think in terms of a "dynamic eye", and objective testing, "i.e., black-box, input, compared with output", you get proof for this paradigm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxLv7BIxnIU

The issue in pure-science, is to finally respect the truth that all natural eyes are dynamic, and a mistaken assumption was made to create the ray-trace analysis.  Obviously, you will never get this type of analysis in an OD or MD's office.  Yet it is critical to understand the consequence of this "New Science" and the fact that "negative status" is indeed the product of the behavior of the totally natural eye. This is an engineering problem, not a medical problem.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1738
Re: Engineers, Pilots and Scientists - for True Prevention.
« Reply #6 on: May 20, 2013, 06:59:40 AM »
In engineering and in science - you look for an "Equivalence".  You look for the alternative explanation.  You look for "Similarity", for instance, is the normal primate eye, "similar" to the normal human eye.  If you agree that they are - then you can test them. 

No you can't test the "Human eye", by putting a minus lens on it -  but you can test the "Primate eye" - which to me is identical to the human eye. 

If a person who can accept that "Equivalence" - he could learn and understand the issue of 1) Long-term near creating negative-state for the totally natural eye, and 2) A  minus 3 diopter lens creating negative status for the totally natural eye. 

Maybe that is too much to ask of a person to understand this basic concept.  But it is essential that the concept be understood, that the eye sees "diverging rays of light", and changes its refractive STATE to match that change.  (This in a broad general sense is the natural eye - having positive and negative states - not failures.  It is the choice-of-words, that truly is the issue.)  I personally measure a refractive STATE, never a "failure".

Final science is then to respect the natural eye as dynamic, and realize that BOTH 1) Long-term near, and 2) A strong minus lens create negative status (20/40) for the natural eye - ALWAYS.  But in this limited sense, it is not a "defect", "error" or "failure".  That is how I draw the line, to separate what *I*  am responsible for, versus a "doc-in-box" is responsible for. 

I would read, "The Printer's Son", to truly understand this issue of self-responsibility.