Subject: Data on the natural dynamic eye, with simplified statistical information.
Here are the supporting drawings and analysis.
Figure 2) Of critical importance is to prove that the natural eye is bi-directional, in its response to an applied “input” – that can be a minus lens, or an enforced confined environment. (Ref: E. L. Smith)
Figure 3) Once you accept that the natural eye is dynamic, you seek to establish a “time-constant” for this system. This shows the time-constant to be 120 days. (Ref: E. L. Smith )
Figure 4) For 20/20 to exist, the natural eye must have a positive refractive state – as shown in this above statistical profile. When the natural eye is placed in an enforced (confined) environment, the natural eye changes its refractive state to a negative value, and thus you have 20/40 to 20/70 (initially) for that natural eye. (Ref: Young)
Figure 5) We often want to believe that a child does not “read too close”, because we want to believe that the eye is not dynamic. In fact, the above statistics show how serious a child’s habits actually are – that slowly create negative status. (Ref: Raphaelson )
Figure 6) But we are still required to prove that this “child’s habit” creates a change of refractive state – for all natural eyes. The above graph proves this relationship. (Ref: O. Brown)
Figure 7) As proven, the natural eye is dynamic, having refractive states – not failures. A positive refractive state, is the character of the normal eye, “in the open”, and will have 20/20 vision. (See the above graph – for Eskimos who did no prolonged close-work.)
For the same, natural eye, the eye changes its refractive state, from a positive, to negative value, as shown for Eskimos who went though 12 years of intensive close work. Please note – the natural eye did NOT become defective. It simply did what you would expect all normal eyes to do – it changed is refractive state from a positive to negative value. (Ref: Young )
Figure 8) The above, is the completely natural eye, when you apply a +3 diopter lens for full time wear. Note that a control group was maintained – that did not change. (Ref: E. L. Smith )
Figure 9) Here is the same natural eye – testing for its dynamic response. In this case, a -3 diopter lens was worn full time, and the eye shows a “time-constant” response, with a change of -2.5 diopters from the wearing of a -3 diopter lens. Note, the this test was not to prove “cause of defect”, but rather, the dynamic behavior of all natural eyes – having measured refractive states, and never, assumed ‘errors”. (Ref: E. L. Smith )
Figure 10) While difficult to understand (perhaps) this graph shows the long-term effect a properly worn plus lens has on the refractive state of the natural eye. (Ref: Young )
In this case, when the plus is worn correctly, the eye does not take on a serious negative status. The group wearing a minus lens (full time) experiences a change-of-state of -1/2 diopter per year – for EACH YEAR IN SCHOOL.
This shows, that if a plus is correctly used (with wisdom and motivation in the person himself), negative status for the natural eye – could be completely avoided.