Sure.  He is an attention-seeking troll.

DrG

Sure,  he gives people wrong information and should be stopped!

-----

Dear Larry,

I thought you were not going
to post messages to me -- or about me.

Now the three of you have done so!

I certainly agree that I am NOT going to deal
with a "population" of people who have no
interest in true-prevention.

You should read, "The Printer's Son", in
Chapter 3 of my book to understand that issue.
www.i-see.org

The person concerned with "clearing" his vision
at the 20/40 to 20/50 level has an excellent probability
of doing so.  But it does take commitment
and work with the plus to do it.

Further, the people who are working to clear their
vision has ALL had medical checks -- for medical
problem.  The ONLY issue is a slight negative
refractive state -- which they wish to clear.

So, again -- I enjoy academic discussions about
the natural eye as a sophisticated control system
(which it has always been), and doing experimental
checks to determine the behavior of this
sophisticated device on an "input" versus "output"
basis -- to obtain base-line behavior for this
said device.

Maybe this approach it too abstract for your.  I really
don't know.  But the individual who clears his
vision with the plus (as some have done) knows
the relationship between his own efforts -- and
the results he ultimately sees -- by passing
all the legal tests that apply to him.
Best, my friends,

Otis
Engineer

www.myopiafree.com

Dear Friend,

You keep on asking for "proof" -- and then totally ignore the proof
that the NATURAL eye as a sophisticated system, changes
its REFRACTIVE STATUS and the visual environment (in diopters)
is changed in a negative direction.

Please remember -- this work is on an "input" versus "output"
basis were you are comparing the PREDICTIONS of the
Donder's Helmholtz theory (i.e., no change is reefractive
status between test group and control group) versus
the expected performance of a sophisticated control system.

I consider this analysis to be pure-science where you
are looking for a mathematical model that reproduces
the refractive behavior of the natural eye.

This eye will have positive or nagative refractive
states -- depending on its average visual environment -- in diopters.

Lead-in chapters are on my siter for your perusal.

There is NO WAY you can reduce this type of objective
science in to a "quick-fix" which you apply to a person
in 15 minutes.  I certainly could NOT deal with a person
in that manner.

I would expect the education-person to go through
a "review process" BEFORE any lens was used.

The issue is for the person himself to decide -- and
a "second opinion".

Best,

Otis
Engineer

______________________________________________________

CHAPTER V

PHYSIOLOGICAL MODELING:  THE LONG-TERM GROWTH OF THE EYE

Science is the attempt to make the chaotic diversity of our
sense-experience correspond to a logically uniform system of thought.

Albert Einstein

A THOUGHT-EXPERIMENT ANALYSIS OF THE EYE'S BEHAVIOR

It is important that we conduct a thought experiment before we
commit
ourselves to doing a full scale measurement study of the normal eye's
behavior.  If the eye is identified as normal, we can then presume that
it
is continuously adjusting its long-term focus by a dynamic control
process.

We will exclude the defective eye from the present analysis.  In
this
chapter I will present a conceptual scheme for the normal eye's
behavior and
in the next chapter the actual factual data that confirms this specific
behavior of the normal eye.  The equation developed from this analysis
is an
order of magnitude more accurate than the Helmholtz-heredity theory in
its
power to predict experimental results.

A CONTROL SYSTEM ANALYSIS

The short-term (accommodation) control of the eye is accurate and
effective.  It is likely that this (averaged) signal is made available
to
the long-term growth control of the eye for correct positioning of the
retina relative to the accommodation system.  This is the thesis of
this
presentation.  (1) A feedback control circuit will insure that the
retina is
adjusted to the average visual environment of the eye.    (Figure 1)

The Laplace transform of the eye's growth control system is:

1/ (TAU s + 1)

TAU = Eye's Time-Constant, Approximately 100 days

Applying a step input to this transfer function results in:

OUTPUT  =  INPUT   *    TRANSFER FUNCTION

V(s) = [ V(s) / s ]   *   [ 1 / (TAU s + 1) ]

Translating this function into the time domain gives:

V ( out ) = V ( in ) * [ 1 -  EXP ( - t / TAU ) ]

Establishing initial conditions, we find that the equation for the
normal eye's behavior has a physiological offset of about 1.5 diopters.

Focus = Offset + Accommodation + Step Input * [ 1 - EXP ( - t / TAU ) ]

Where:

Focus = The focal state of the normal eye.

Offset = The difference between the average value of accommodation and
the
focal state of the normal eye -- considered over a period of
months.  (For a population of normal eyes the value is +1.5
diopters.)

Accommodation = Normal accommodation.  By design, the accommodation
system's focal state is almost an exact replica of the visual
environment.    The system is blur-driven and has a time-constant
of about 1/4 of a second.

Step- Input = The step-input represents a sharp quantitative change in
the
average value of accommodation.

EXP = Exponential function.

- t / TAU e = EXP ( - t / TAU )

e = 2.718

t = Time, in days after the step change is induced in the average
visual
environment.

TAU = The time-constant of a normal eye.  All normal eyes have a
time-constant.  (The typical value for the normal eye is 100
days)

Does this equation represent the fundamental long-term focal
behavior of
the normal eye?  Only a direct factual test will confirm the accuracy
of this
equation.  To verify this, we will subject the human eye to a
fundamental
experiment.

The primary technique for the evaluation of two theories in
science is
to compare their predictive capabilities.  The theories must be stated
in
mathematical terms, and must yield quantitative predictions.  Both the
Helmholtz-passive and Helmholtz-dynamic theory of the normal eye's
behavior
meet this requirement.    Both theories yield explicit numerical
predictions
that can be checked against reality by actual test.  The theory that
yields
the most accurate prediction becomes the controlling theory, and will
be
relied on for further analysis.

The first question is this:  Does the equation predict the focal
control characteristic of the normal human eye; day after day, year
after
year?  Using 231 days as the value for time, and - 0.9 diopters
(estimated)
as the average value of accommodation, we find that the normal eye sets
its
long-term focus to + 0.6 diopters.  Actual measurement of monkeys shows
that
their eyes have a focal status of + 0.57 diopters when their eyes are
maintained in an open visual environment.  (2) The transfer function
correctly describes and predicts this dynamic behavior characteristic
of the
normal eye in an open environment.  This is the first test of any
theory
that characterizes the normal eye's long-term behavior.

A STEP INPUT

If we can make a sudden shift in the eye's visual input, we can
check
the difference between these two theories of the eye's long-term
behavior.
A negative lens may be used to achieve this goal.

The negative lens causes parallel rays of light (from infinity) to
be
diverged, causing the accommodation mechanism to adjust as though the
object
is much closer.  All objects closer than infinity will be moved
correspondingly closer to the eye.  (Figure 2)

A CONCEPTUAL TEST TO DETERMINE THE NORMAL EYE'S BEHAVIOR

In order to test these two Helmholtz theories of vision we will
subject
them to a hypothetical test.  We will select 100 children (eight years
of
age) and verify that they have normal vision.  (A positive focal state
of +
0.6 diopters.)

Fifty of these children will wear a - 1.2 diopter lens (33 inch
focal
length).  The other fifty children will be the control group.  The
focal
state of the normal eye will be measured at seven day intervals.  A
FORTRAN
generated graph, using the numerical predictions of the
Helmholtz-passive
and Helmholtz-dynamic theories are shown in figure 3.

FOCAL STATE PREDICTION FOR THE CONTROL GROUP

The "delta" accommodation is zero diopters for the control group.

Focus = Offset + Accommodation + Delta * [ 1 - EXP ( -t / TAU ) ]

Focus = ( 1.5 D ) + ( - 0.9 ) +  ( 0 ) * [ 1 - EXP ( - 231 / 100 ) ]

Focus = + 0.60 Diopters, after 231 Days.

FOCAL STATE PREDICTION FOR THE TEST GROUP

The "delta" accommodation is - 1.2 diopters for the test group.

Focus = ( 1.5 ) + ( - 0.9 ) + ( -1.2 ) * [ 1 - EXP ( - 231 / 100 ) ]

Focus =  - 0.48 Diopters, after 231 Days.

Actual testing will help us choose between these two concepts of
the
normal eye's behavior.  If the test group does not show a change in its
focal state, the passive theory of the normal eye's behavior will be
confirmed.  If the test group demonstrates a change, the dynamic
concept for
the normal eye's behavior will be confirmed.

CONCLUSION

After 231 days the conceptual test of the normal eye's behavior
was
terminated.  The test need not be carried to this extent to demonstrate
the
greater predictive accuracy of the dynamic theory.  Since the heredity
of
the control group is identical to the heredity of the test group, both
groups should continue to maintain their positive focal state, if the
Helmholtz-passive theory is correct.

[Sorry -- the graph got compressed by the GOOGLE software.
This is a smooth e ^ (-t/TAU) curve. OSB]

Figure 3  A TEST OF TWO THEORIES: HEREDITY VS. FEEDBACK CONTROL

PREDICTED        STEP CHANGE    = -1.2 D
FOCAL            TIME CONSTANT  = 100 DAYS
STATUS:         F = FEEDBACK H = HEREDITY    L = STEP INPUT

DAYS FEED  HERE-
INTO BACK  DITY
TEST              DIOPTERS NEARSIGHTED    POSITIVE FOCUS
-1.0  -.8  -.6  -.4    -.2   .0   .2    .4   .6
----  ----  ----     ..........................................
0   .60   .60          L <-----------------------<<  F
7   .52   .60          L      Step Change 1.2 D    F H
14   .44   .60          L      (Negative Lens)    F   H
21   .37   .60          L         .        F     H
28   .31   .60          L         .       F      H
35   .25   .60          L         .     F        H
42   .19   .60          L         .    F        H
49   .14   .60          L         .  F        H
56   .09   .60          L         . F        H
63   .04   .60          L         .F        H
70   .00   .60          L         F         H
77  -.04   .60          L        F.         H
84  -.08   .60          L       F .         H
91  -.12   .60          L      F  .         H
98  -.15   .60          L     F   .         H
105  -.18   .60          L    F    .         H
112  -.21   .60          L    F    .         H
119  -.23   .60          L    F     .         H
126  -.26   .60          L       F <-----<< Test        H
133  -.28   .60          L       F      .   Group      H
140  -.30   .60          L      F       .         H
147  -.32   .60          L      F       .         H
154  -.34   .60          L     F         .         H
161  -.36   .60          L     F         .         H
168  -.38   .60          L    F         .         H
175  -.39   .60          L    F         .         H
182  -.41   .60          L    F         .         H
189  -.42   .60          L   F    Control >>-------->  H
196  -.43   .60          L   F    Group .         H
203  -.44   .60          L   F         .         H
210  -.45   .60          L   F         .         H
217  -.46   .60          L  F         .         H
224  -.47   .60          L  F         .         H
231  -.48   .60          L  F         .         H
........................................
-1.0  -.8  -.6  -.4    -.2   .0   .2    .4   .6

In this thought experiment, the fifty children who wore a -1.2
diopter
lens have undergone a -1.14 diopter net change in their normal eye's
focal
state, while the control group continues to maintain their + 0.6
diopter
focal state.  The conclusion is that the Helmholtz-dynamic theory is an
order of magnitude more accurate than the heredity theory in
representing
the fundamental behavior characteristic of the normal eye.

The Helmholtz-dynamic theory leads to an exact mathematical
analysis
and representation of the performance of the eye.  (3) The
Helmholtz-heredity theory produces inaccurate predictions about the
long-term behavior of the normal eye.

There is a logical continuum between an accommodation (feedback)
control system and a long-term focusing (feedback) system.  There is a
sharp
logical break between a precisely accurate accommodation system and a
Helmholtz-heredity theory of the normal eye's behavior.

REFERENCES

1.  Brown, O., Berger, R.  A NEARSIGHTEDNESS COMPUTER, (343-346)
Proceedings of the 7th New England Bioengineering Conference (1979)
(Additional references can be found in this paper.)

2.  Young, F.  A.  Unpublished study of 375 monkeys who were maintained
in
an open visual environment.  Their mean focal status was +0.577
diopters.

3.  Biernson, G.  A FEEDBACK-CONTROL MODEL OF HUMAN VISION, Proceedings
of
   the IEEE, Vol.  54 #6, (858-872) June, 1966