Subject: Two theories of the totally natural eye.
1) The preferred "Box Camera" assumption - taught in physics classes.
2) The alternative "Dynamic Eye" concept - where the eye is accepted as dynamic - in the first place.
It is not that one theory is "right", but that one is more accurate in predictive capability - than the other. (Note: I draw a "line" around and OD or MD's office - and will not "argue" with them. They have a minus lens that obviously "works", and no one wants anything else.)
This mistakes of ASSUMING that the natural eye is not a dynamic system. Part 1
Subject: Why prevention, at -1.0 diopters could become successful. 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.
(Video to posted at the end of this presentation.)
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.